Norman Baker: Pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2006, Official Report, columns 818-9W, on Dorneywood, what the names are of those guests visiting in an official capacity registered in Dorneywood's visitors' book since 1 May 2005.

Norman Baker: I do not understand the Deputy Prime Minister's reluctance to give us the information. Even the Prime Minister, who is not known for being straight with answers, tells us who has been to Chequers. I should have thought that the Deputy Prime Minister would want to tell us about the heads of state and important people whom he has been entertaining; or are all the visitors working-class mates whom he invited over for croquet?

John Prescott: That was a particularly cheap question. This House's concern is public expenditure, and no public expenditure was involved with any of those who have been visitors at Dorneywood during my time—particularly where there have been personal visitors, I have paid the bill, and properly so. I do not think that such matters are accountable to this House, which has been the position with all previous Cabinet Ministers who have used Dorneywood. I reiterate the point that the visitors' book is the property of the trust. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed his reputation in this House for being famously boring, as  The Times has said.

Gordon Prentice: That was a very good answer. My friend carries a heavy responsibility for the UK's relationship with China, and I know that he met a high level delegation from the National People's Congress last week. Will he tell the House what was the most significant thing that came out of his discussions with the representatives of the National People's Congress?

John Prescott: I will obviously leave others to make judgments about that. With regard to the croquet, the set was provided by the ex-Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Members of my Department wished to play croquet, and I think that we enjoyed the game, quite frankly. I know that a lot was made of it being during working hours, but I notice that there are not many here people today during working hours. Perhaps some are at Ascot, and the  Daily Mail will be there photographing them—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner, you must be quiet. You must allow—[ Interruption.] Order.

Mr. Speaker: No, I will tell no one—[ Interruption.] Order. I tell the hon. Gentleman to be quiet. I will put it much more politely than he is putting it. He has got to be quiet. [ Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is getting very childish. He has got to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the question. Is the Deputy Prime Minister fine with his answer?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The third sector can play an important role in innovating and getting close to the user, which the public sector sometimes cannot. For Labour Members, the fact that we have increased public spending since 1997 to deliver improved public services is absolutely consistent with an increased role for the third sector in delivery. Using the third sector is not about Government abdicating their responsibilities adequately to fund public services.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister look at the situation concerning voluntary and charitable organisations whereby a person who serves in different categories has to be checked with the Criminal Records Bureau on every single occasion? Is not that overly bureaucratic and unnecessary?

Hilary Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the role of worklessness in tackling child poverty. There are specific problems in South Tyneside—as he knows, I know the area well. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform so that we can work with people in South Tyneside, for example, employers and other partners, to get people into work and to sustain them in work, thus enabling them to lift themselves and their children out of poverty. Tackling worklessness and inactivity, especially among those on benefits, remains our top priority and we are determined to work on that so that all children, including those in South Tyneside, get the life chances that they deserve.

Matthew Taylor: I am glad to hear that the Minister is not satisfied with the Government's record—she has considerable reason not to be. The Government have already missed their target for cutting child poverty and there is not one hon. Member who has not experienced cases in their surgeries of poor families who are hit by demands for thousands of pounds because of Government failures in the tax credit system, which place people in extreme poverty. Is it the system that needs changing or the Ministers in charge of it?

Hilary Armstrong: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. He knows that we are not satisfied and we will continue to strive to do better. I know that he respects the academic John Hills from the London School of Economics. His recent book states:
	"The package of support for low-income working families with children is now one of the most generous in the world."
	That has been critical to tackling the problem. The hon. Gentleman also knows that tax credits benefit 6 million families with 10 million children. In total, 20 million people live in households that benefit from tax credits. Of course we want to do better. I look forward to his working with us to ensure that we can eliminate child poverty.

John Prescott: I own one house—that has always been the case—and one car, not two. But we just have to live with the image presented by the press and put forward in this House from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about taking over homes, and the Department has just made an announcement on that issue. It involves houses that have been empty for years. We are attempting to improve the streets, but in some cases we do not know who owns the house in question. In other cases, the owners have refused to improve the property. We have now decided to take over the management of such houses, improve them and bring them up to the standards that we want for those homes. They will then become available to the owner if they wish to take them back. The payment for the improvements will come from the rents that we will impose on them. This is about the management of those properties, not their takeover, and it will improve the areas that we are talking about.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about the politically dead, perhaps now that he has been confirmed as the senior member of the shadow Cabinet, he will remove from his website the statement that he is still the leader of the Conservative party. Perhaps he will also tell us how successful he will be in getting an agreement for his party to come out of the European People's party, a job that he has been given but has so far failed to achieve.

John Prescott: The House will be aware that it was a Labour Government who introduced the landmark Equal Pay Act 1970 and the minimum wage, opposed by Conservative Members, which led to pay increases for over 1 million women. Since 1997, we have introduced further measures to combat discrimination: the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2006, all of which set down new rights for many people.
	There remains more to do to tackle the problem that women who work full time still earn 13 per cent. less than men who work full time.

Tony Blair: Of course it is important for all the long-term issues involving the Home Office to be considered very carefully. The reason we have opposed a single border agency force is simple: having put in an immense amount of money and extra staff, we believe that the best way of dealing with such matters is through intelligence-led operations, which have proved extremely successful. It is true that we need to do much more, and we are looking at that, but if we want to protect our borders properly, the electronic border system that we are introducing will be important. I should also say that if we want to keep track of people in this country, in the end we will have to face up to the difficult decision on identity cards. If the right hon. Gentleman is still against that, he cannot be serious about ensuring that we know exactly who is and who should be in our country.

Hon. Members: He is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Being wrong does not deny a Member the right to speak in the House. If that were so, very few Members would be able to speak.

Tony Blair: While we are on the subject of former Home Secretaries, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman—and I think this is why my right hon. Friends were shouting at him—that the Home Secretary who began the process of removing embarkation controls was his predecessor as leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I do not think that that was a very wise point to make.
	As for the Home Office, as a result of the changes that have been made crime is down, there are record numbers of police, asylum claims are now processed far more quickly, and we have reduced the number of asylum claims dramatically over the past few years. I agree that it is important to establish whether we can go further. I merely say to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that I hope he will not do what he has done before, which is to attack us in public for not being toff—tough enough— [Laughter]—or even toff enough! Whether toff or tough, the fact is— [Interruption.] I do not think we should get involved in a competition in that regard.
	Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says in public about our policy on law and order—when he tries to suggest that we have not been tough enough—what he actually does in the House and, in particular, with his colleagues in the other place is vote against each and every measure that is necessary.
	Incidentally, while we are on that subject, the right hon. Gentleman should correct something else that he did last week. He tried to suggest that the Sentencing Guidelines Council was the reason why he voted against the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Actually, he was in favour of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and his party's spokesman at the time said that it was "admirable". The reason Conservative Members voted against the 2003 Act was the issue of withdrawal of trial by jury—on which, incidentally, they were also wrong. It was not because the measures were too soft; it was because they were too tough.

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree with that at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he and his colleagues are proud of their voting record, but I should like to see the leaflets that the Liberal Democrats put around during the recent local elections saying how proud they were that they voted against the antisocial behaviour legislation. Let him show me the leaflets saying how they voted against the powers to close crack houses and against antisocial behaviour orders and the drunk and disorderly provisions. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shows me those leaflets, I will pay some attention to what he says.

Tony Blair: Of course, as a result of devolution those decisions will be taken in accordance with the legislation that outlines the respective powers of the Scottish Executive, the UK Parliament and the UK Executive. I point out to the hon. Lady that Scotland has nuclear power stations now and a large part of the whole country's electricity depends on them.

David Borrow: During the European summit last week, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to meet members of the Dutch Christian Union party, which is against the election of women, or members of the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom party, which is against foreigners working in schools—[ Interruption.]—or indeed members of the Polish Civic Platform party, which wants to reduce workers' and trade union rights?

Tony Blair: Actually, I did not have the chance to meet them, but it is unwise of Opposition Members to shout and bawl since those are their new partners in the European Union.

Tony Blair: Liveability is the ability of local communities to be free from crime and fear, which is precisely why we introduced legislation. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against that one but it would not surprise me if they did—[ Interruption.]

Nia Griffith: What can my right hon. Friend say to sufferers of mesothelioma and their families in my constituency and elsewhere in view of the devastating message that they received from the Lords recently?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right both in what she says and the tone in which she says it. I am sure that everybody condemns what was an appalling and totally unjustifiable attack. In fairness to the football fans from England, as well, the vast majority of them behave extremely well. The way in which the present World cup is being conducted is absolutely excellent and it is a great tribute not just to the German authorities, who are conducting it and in charge of it, but to the English fans who have travelled there. I pay tribute to all those who lawfully and properly are football supporters. She is absolutely right about what she says about that particular case.

Tony Blair: No, it is not, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that, because I know that he supported the presence of British troops and I say this in no disrespect to him at all. The fact is, at long last, we have for the first time ever in Iraq a fully elected democratic Government bringing together the Sunni, the Shi'a and the Kurds. They are the people who are the democratic representatives of the Iraqis today. Their view—all of them, incidentally, said this to me when I was in Baghdad recently—is that they want us to stay and see the job done, because there is difficulty in Iraq today not because the British authorities have fallen down on the job, or even, frankly, the Iraqi authorities, but because there are people there who want to terrorise and to stop democracy taking root for some of the same sorts of reasons that see those people engaged in criminal or terrorist acts the world over. We have to understand that the fight there, as in Afghanistan, is part of the wider struggle against that type of global terrorism. The worst message that we could send—I say this with respect to him—is that we are going to walk away when the people who are democratically elected want us to stay. We stay and get the job done, and I believe that that is the British way.

Tony Blair: I can only look into that particular case because obviously I do not know about it. There can be reasons why people are not immediately deported that are to do with the country to which they are being returned. It is quite important that before we take it as read that a person immediately goes once there is a deportation order, we realise that there can sometimes be reasons why they are not returned immediately that have nothing to do with the immigration authorities or the Home Office. The important thing is that such people should be in custody until the moment at which they can be returned.

Tony Blair: It is not as if an immense amount has not been done already, for the reasons that I gave earlier. For example, there has been a lot of criticism about the immigration and nationality directorate for perfectly understandable reasons, but let us be clear about the situation that we inherited and what now happens. It used to be the case that the average asylum application— [ Interruption. ] I am explaining what we have done in nine years, so the right hon. Gentleman should listen.
	An asylum application used to take 20 months, but the average time in the vast majority of cases is now two months. We used to remove only one in five failed asylum seekers, but we now remove more than the unfounded applications that come in. Unlike the previous Government, who were about to sack people from the immigration department, we have increased the numbers to deal with the situation. That is what we have done in nine years, and we will do more over the next nine.

James Duddridge: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister said that local authorities could repossess houses if they have been empty for years. I may be wrong, but I think that he inadvertently misled the House, because it is, indeed, six months. What advice can you give on how I can go about correcting that error in  Hansard, if indeed it was an error?

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to designate St George's day as an annual public holiday in England; and for connected purposes.
	If 23 April were to fall on a weekend, the following Monday or the preceding Friday would be a public holiday.
	I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity once again to introduce a Bill on an issue that I sincerely believe to be dear to the hearts of so many in this country. The date of 23 April as the day of the patron saint of England means a great deal to the people of our country throughout our green and pleasant land. Sadly, it has become undervalued in recent times. When I introduced a similar Bill in autumn 2004, it was unfortunately defeated after an impassioned speech by the then Labour Member of Parliament for Hornchurch. Unfortunately for him, his constituents disagreed, remembering that to be born an Englishman is to have won the first prize in the lottery of life. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the new Conservative Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) fully supports the Bill before the House.
	Some were also concerned that the previous Bill sought to remove May day as a public holiday. Although I am still personally in favour of that idea, hon. Members will notice that in the interests of gaining cross-party support such a clause is not included in the Bill before us. I should further make it clear that I am also in favour of extending the same rights for St Andrew's day in Scotland and St David's day in Wales, but I shall leave that to other hon. Members, although I am sure that some of the reasoning that I shall put forward today is valid for all parts of the United Kingdom.
	It is not just me who wishes formally to recognise the day. Many people and organisations are clamouring for St George's day to be given adequate recognition. Indeed, St George's day is fast becoming a national event. Last year, a third of members of the Trades Union Congress voted in favour of reclaiming the day for public enjoyment and celebration; unsurprisingly, the Royal Society of St George is also doing an enormous amount to promote St George's day; and if anyone was lucky enough to have visited Romford market on 23 April this year, as I was, they will have noticed that every stall displayed the cross of St George flag, as market traders proclaimed pride in their country.
	In Romford, red roses were handed out in the town centre by my local St George's committee. Flags were given away to children and live music and entertainment were provided. As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, my loyal Staffordshire bull terrier, Buster, did a walkabout dressed in the flag of St George, proving once again that he is Romford's most patriotic dog. Indeed, there was a genuine belief that people of all backgrounds wanted to celebrate the day. My local council, the London borough of Havering, ensures that the flag of St George is displayed alongside the Union flag, not only on 23 April but throughout the year. Many hon. Members will have experienced the same sense of celebration in their constituencies, as businesses, shops, schools, scout groups, charities, sports clubs and churches joined in the commemoration of England's own day.
	Many people choose to celebrate St George's day, because it represents the true spirit of England. Making it a public holiday would give all the people of England a wonderful opportunity to participate in events and parties celebrating our country. A fine example of such a practice is to be found in Ireland, where St Patrick's day—17 March—is famously celebrated. Gibraltar's national day—10 September—is a magnificent celebration not only of Gibraltarians' pride in being British but of their love of their homeland. On the Isle of Man, Tynwald day is a public holiday, with celebrations throughout the island, and the Falkland islands mark Liberation day and Battle day with public holidays and celebrations. British people everywhere else are proud to participate in the celebration of our culture, history and heritage, so why not in England? Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and scores of countries, particularly in Scandinavia, celebrate their national day in style, with great pageantry as well as great parties. In Switzerland, 1 August is a wonderful day in the calendar of that proud independent nation at the heart of Europe, with the sound of alpine horns and cow bells echoing throughout the land as the distinctive Swiss flag flies from every building and, indeed, every home. It is no accident that all those nations have a strong sense of pride in their national identity, which is a source of strength and unity in any country. I hope that England follows their example and gives our country an annual day to remember and cherish.
	There are economic advantages in celebrating St George's day. A recent study by the "Value of St George" campaign, which aims to make companies aware of the benefits of making our patron saint's day a national celebration, said that while celebrations had increased, much more could be done. It concluded that businesses across England were missing out on nearly £40 million a year by failing to celebrate their national day as much as their Irish counterparts. During the World cup, there has been a resurgence in English pride. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have shown their pride in St George by displaying the flag on their homes and bicycles. What better way to show our support, thanks and pride in our rugby team, who won the World cup, our cricket team, who won the Ashes, our Olympic team, who have won many gold medals, and our football team, who will win the football World cup, than by making St George's day a public holiday in England?
	St George's day is a day when we can celebrate Englishness, represented not only by sporting achievement but, at best, by great English heroes such as Churchill, Nelson, Wellington, Shakespeare and Margaret Thatcher, who all believed in the values of St George. Ours is a country that believes in tolerance and understanding, welcoming everyone who wants to celebrate our English way of life under the red and white banner of St George. Let us not allow our pride and enjoyment in taking part in the World cup to be forgotten in a month's time. It is time that we celebrated pride in our country, our flag and our English way of life and allowed all English men and women to celebrate their heritage and culture each and every year. Therefore, I call on all Members—of all parties, and from all regions and countries in the United Kingdom—to join me and to celebrate 23 April in order to allow England to come together and its people to celebrate the country of which we are all so proud. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Andrew Rosindell, Angela Browning, Mr. Peter Lilley, Bob Spink, Mr. Andrew Turner, James Brokenshire, Mr. Simon Burns, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Shahid Malik, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Geraldine Smith, Bob Russell.

Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented That leave be given to bring in a Bill to designate St George's Day as an annual public holiday in England; and for connected purposes.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 20 October 2006, and to be printed [Bill 199].

Hugo Swire: Again, my hon. Friend is again entirely right. The NAO has examined the World Service's books for many years, and it is increasingly able, almost by invitation, to examine some of the BBC's books. But the 30 per cent. of people questioned who expressed dissatisfaction with the BBC might be more inclined to express some satisfaction if they knew that there was full and transparent accounting of where the money is going and what, at the end of the day, they are being invited to pay for.
	The BBC has established a worldwide reputation for excellence, but that does not mean that it should be involved in every possible area of media activity.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has a great ability to look into the future—I am sure that he sees a bright future for his party and its leader in late November this year. On speculation about the settlement, I urge a little caution for reasons that I shall later adumbrate.
	The Government are committed to getting the settlement of the licence fee right and ensuring that it provides value for money for licence fee payers. Conservative Members have asked us to allow Parliament to approve the settlement of the licence fee, but they never wanted to introduce such a provision when they were in government.
	They also say that the process is not transparent enough. I would say in all honesty to the hon. Member for East Devon, who reminded the House that I have a little experience of his party, that I was not aware of a great rush for more transparency on any subject during the two years when I sat on his side of the House. Looking back on the way in which Conservative Members conducted themselves in relation to the BBC and the licence fee review, let alone the charter, I do not recall that transparency was up front. That compares significantly with the process in which we have been engaging.
	The hon. Member for East Devon completely ignored the levels of public consultation that we have engaged in relentlessly for three years. He completely ignored the work of the independent advisers commissioned to scrutinise the bid of the BBC and the fact that we have published, and will continue to publish, the advice that we receive. He ignored the research we have conducted into the public's willingness to pay, which we have said we will publish, as we will. That research is helping to inform us in the Department in getting the right figure rather than the hasty figure that he would like. He ignored the work that has been done by Lord Burns in the course of advising us on the settlement, and he ignored the advice that we have invited and received from the industry.
	If it is transparency and robust scrutiny that inform the demand for debate, I urge hon. Members to reflect on the sheer scale and volume of consultation and the transparency in which it has been conducted. It is of course open to Parliament to express its views on such matters in such debates, as it is to Select Committees. In fact, Select Committees have been looking at this issue for some time, not only in this House but in another place. It is right that they offer clear advice and conclusions about the level of the licence fee and the process that produces that settlement. Parliament has the right to object to changes to the level of the licence fee. Under the negative resolution procedure, it remains open to the House to debate the statutory instrument that sets that level.
	Before we lose sight of the real argument, let us remember that in the course of the consultation we went directly to those people whom we represent here in this House, as we have relentlessly for three years. One of the documents produced more than two years ago on the review of the charter said that when the public were asked who they wanted to have a greater say in running the BBC, Parliament did not do very well. I suggest that hon. Members who want more and more say should go back to what the public said to us about whether they wanted us to have more involvement or less. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say, "Let's have less interference", and then demand more.

Shaun Woodward: Of course it is a tax; that is why the Government should be at the heart of setting it and should not abdicate the responsibility to the National Audit Office. The NAO should be involved in advising us, but at the end of the day it is rightly a decision for Government.
	Let me offer further reassurance to Conservative Members who say that they are concerned that the BBC might have a larger than necessary licence fee settlement. It is very simple: it will not. That is why we are not proceeding with the hasty and pressured response that the hon. Member for East Devon would like. The settlement will give the BBC the funds that it needs to deliver its work for the public—in the words of an author slung out of the Conservative party, not a penny more, not a penny less. The licence fee is not flawless. We recognise that for those on lower incomes a greater proportion of their disposable income will be spent on their licence fee—that is common sense. However, as a percentage of household income, it has declined since 1982. In survey after survey, the licence fee still emerges as the best way to continue funding the BBC. We may call it the least worst option, because nobody much enjoys paying tax, but nobody has come up with a better way of doing it that commands the same incredibly high level of public support.

Shaun Woodward: I have long admired the hon. Gentleman's logic, but I think that I have lost it this afternoon. I hope that I will encounter it again on a future edition of "Sky at Night".
	We are also inviting the public to describe how they would like trust members to represent them on the trust. In the next few weeks and months, we will continue to invite further consultation with the public on the sort of responsibilities that they would like to be added to the work of trust members. It is an ongoing process of consultation and I believe that it is the best that we have managed to do in any review or appointment of people to the BBC so far. I am sure that, in the future, we can improve on that. We have made significant progress in producing a fairer and better way of running the BBC.
	We are aware of questions, especially by some in the local newspaper industry, about the new trust's effectiveness as a regulator and its ability to hold the executive to account. That seems neither correct nor fair. I remind hon. Members of what we are proposing. The trust will be underpinned by an unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency; a duty to have regard to competition issues; a system of purpose remits, which sets out strategic priorities in each of the public purposes and for how performance will be judged; a system of service licences and the public value test—with market impact assessments by Ofcom.
	In addition, there will be new duties on value for money and a strengthened role for the National Audit Office in the existing arrangements. It should be provided with the information about the BBC's activities that it reasonably needs to make judgments about matters for examination. The trust must and will ensure that that happens. The governors and the NAO have also agreed that it would be helpful for the NAO's reports to be published as soon as practicable after completion. We welcome the response by the current BBC chairman, Michael Grade, to whom I pay tribute for his work in the past few months, especially as he takes the BBC through a period of change, in recognising not only why we are taking action but acknowledging the spirit in which we are doing that.
	He has already made a commitment to invite the NAO to examine the extent to which future self-help targets are met. This potentially powerful new development should not be underestimated.
	The DCMS has, however, decided not to give the NAO unfettered access to the BBC's accounts. If it did so, it would risk encroaching on the editorial independence of the BBC and would conflict with the principle of direct accountability to the licence fee payer. I remind hon. Members of what the public have told us again and again. They do not want greater involvement by outside bodies in the BBC.

Philip Dunne: The Minister just stated that he believed that the National Audit Office would interfere with the editorial integrity of the BBC. That was the most extraordinary statement. Will give some examples? What does he fantasise that the National Audit Office might say to the BBC that would affect its independence?

Shaun Woodward: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not fantasise about the NAO in any shape or form, and I am not going to indulge him by doing so now. However, if he wants to write to me about this, I will be very happy to write back.
	The White Paper puts the BBC firmly in the role of a trusted guide, bringing the benefits of new technologies to audiences. To do this, it must have the flexibility to deliver its content in new ways. We want to see increased competition in this marketplace. However, we do not want to dilute the BBC's ability to continue to set standards; nor do we want to create a neo-protectionist market in which existing and new competition are unable to thrive. The broadcasting landscape is more complex today than ever before, and one of the most important aims of the new charter is to provide clarity.
	That is why we have defined the BBC's public purposes more clearly than ever before. That is also why, in setting out its priorities, the trust will have to work with the grain of what others have to offer. The new purpose remits will provide a vehicle for ensuring that the trust engages with the world outside the BBC in deciding how the public purposes should be delivered. It also is why, to embed transparency and certainty in its decision making, we have put in place a new triple-lock system, comprising service licences, content characteristics and the public value test. It is important that the BBC's place in the market is not subject to caricature. Let me assure hon. Members that there will be a new public value test to scrutinise new services, as well as significant changes to existing BBC services, with a market impact assessment provided by Ofcom.

Shaun Woodward: Having had a number of conversations across the industry, I have not received the impression that the senior managers in the BBC who are making this decision have any intention of wriggling out of it. They genuinely see the advantages of moving to the Greater Manchester area, and of diversification and greater regional production. They also see the advantages of bringing in talent that has been constrained by the perception of the BBC as being so London-centric. My hon. Friend has made an extremely good case for his constituents and for others in the Greater Manchester area in helping to secure this bid.
	The people involved in the bid have been smart enough to recognise that, by not going down the protectionist route of saying, "Let's stay in London", and by recognising the advantages of opening themselves up to more competition and diversification, they will bring in greater talent and creativity to the BBC. At the end of the era, if it does not have that, it will not have the services to offer. They have also recognised that places such as Dubai, Seoul and other locations in the far east—which offer different services but use a similar model—create opportunities through diversification, which does a huge amount of good to the local, regional and national economy.
	One of the big tasks ahead in the UK is to recognise the role of creative industries, as I know my hon. Friend does. The future for Britain lies very much with those industries, which represent nearly 8 per cent. of gross value added for the UK economy. It is huge mistake to think that we can handle it all out of London. It is absolutely right to see it as regionalised and absolutely right to go to places such as the north-west, when we know that incredible talent can be harnessed to one of the main growth industries for the whole of the UK.

Pete Wishart: Does the Minister agree that more than just personnel and resources are involved in devolution, as the mind-set is also important along with recognition of the different features and factors of the modern UK? Scotland has its own Government and its own national life, but we still have a news service that is metropolitan based and becoming increasingly irrelevant. Surely as part of devolution, we should start looking into having a Scottish news service that serves the Scottish people. We should be moving towards regional and national news services.

Ann Keen: The Minister has provided us with important information because vulnerable older people often have contact only with a small number of people. Some of the most significant groups are charities and voluntary organisations, so will the Minister ensure that they are properly involved in the process?

Hugo Swire: We are now about two years from the commencement of digital switchover, so it is critical to know what the licence fee will be before it begins, but there appears to be some dislocation. When we debated the announcement of the licence fee, the Minister stated categorically that at no stage would a date be published. However, I have with me a document, "BBC Charter Review: Your BBC, Your Say", which was printed five minutes ago from a DCMS website. It states that phase 3 includes
	"Mid 2006 Parliamentary debate on Charter and Agreement",
	which we are having now, I concede, but it also refers to
	"Mid 2006 Licence Fee level agreed".
	It is now mid-2006 and the Minister says that the licence fee level has not been agreed. One source must be wrong. Is the Minister wrong, or is it the website? If it is the website, I suggest that the Minister urges his civil servants to amend it. If he is wrong, perhaps he will retract his statement.

Don Foster: Whatever our disagreements, at least we all agree that for the last 80 years, the BBC has been the pre-eminent public service broadcaster, making a major contribution to our democracy, to our culture and to our standing in the world. I suspect that we all agree that in the rapidly changing world of broadcasting, we must ensure a future for the BBC that enables it to remain the best in the world and the envy of the world. That means, in my view, that it must be strong, independent—not least from the Government—and well and securely funded. It must be equipped to meet the challenges of the digital multi-channel, multi-platform age.
	We believe that much in the White Paper, to which the Minister has already referred, and in the draft charter and agreement will help to achieve those aims. Liberal Democrats certainly welcome the decision to have a 10-year charter, which will provide stability for the BBC through the period of digital switchover. We welcome the increased opportunities for independent television production through the window of creative opportunity, but I hope that the BBC will work harder to provide more opportunities for independent radio producers than they have at present. We welcome the concept of service licences for each BBC service, but like the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I certainly believe that we need greater differentiation in the services covered by such licences.
	Although I have some concerns, which I shall explain in a few moments, we welcome the improvements in the system to assess market impact and public value in respect of new BBC services or the development of existing services. We accept that the licence fee is, as the Minister described it, the least worst option currently available. It is certainly far better than alternatives such as direct Government funding, subscription, advertisements or sponsorship. We also welcome and support the planned move to Salford Quays in Greater Manchester.
	As critical friends of the BBC, we have a number of remaining concerns about some of the Government's proposals—most notably governance, which the Minister dwelt on. He was absolutely right to say that the old system under which the governors were both flag wavers for and regulators of the BBC was simply untenable and had to change.
	We propose that a totally independent regulator should be established for all public service broadcasters. We certainly do not believe that what the Government propose will give us what is urgently needed—a genuinely independent regulator. For example, some of the existing governors will transfer to the new trust. That is certainly evidence of continuity, rather than radical overhaul. Perhaps more importantly, the White Paper very clearly describes the BBC Trust as a
	"sovereign body within the BBC",
	not separate from the BBC. Whatever the Minister might say about my point about the chairman of the trust being called the chairman of the BBC being pedantic, that too adds to the confusion.
	The Minister said that it was right and proper for Select Committees to give clear advice to the Government. Certainly, he will be aware that the House of Lords Select Committee on the BBC Charter Review gave very clear advice on the issue. It said that the
	"proposals for reforming the governance...of the BBC are confusing, misguided and unworkable."
	As I said in an intervention earlier—yes, it is surely right that the Government have carried out an extensive consultation exercise, but what matters is that they then listen to what people have said during the consultation.
	We are convinced that the trust is an improvement on the current governor arrangements, but it still does not provide an independent regulator, so the BBC will be its own judge and jury. That will certainly give no confidence to people who fear that, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the BBC will use its powers to crowd out others from the marketplace if it does not have an independent regulator to make those decisions.
	Indeed, we have already heard from a number of hon. Members that similar concerns have been expressed by a wide range of bodies in the broadcasting and media sector. I have certainly heard such views from local and regional newspapers— including  The Bath Chronicle in my constituency , which is excellent—from the commercial radio sector and from other TV and internet companies. Yes, we have a better system now, but if the BBC is ultimately to be its own judge and jury, the system will not give the BBC's competitors confidence about whether they will be protected from being crowded out.
	Just before I turn to the licence fee, I want briefly to mention three other issues relating to the BBC's future. First, although I acknowledge the advice that Lord Justice Auld gave in 2001, I fail to understand why licence fee evasion should continue to be a criminal offence. I hope that the Government are prepared to reconsider that issue, and find out whether such evasion could become a civil offence—and, incidentally, whether we could introduce a fixed penalty system, like those used for failing to pay parking fines, the congestion charge or whatever.
	Secondly, hon. Members have already expressed the view that we want to see a strong BBC, but not an omnipotent BBC. The BBC benefits from competition in public service broadcasting. A monopoly would benefit no one, including the BBC. We need to do more than is currently proposed to protect the other players who deliver public service broadcasting, including some, such as Sky and those in the commercial radio sector, who are not defined as public service broadcasters but make an important contribution to public service broadcasting. I certainly welcome the BBC's proposals to work in partnership with, for instance, Channel 4, but we also need not only stronger measures to protect the market but a much more urgent review than is currently planned of what the hon. Member for East Devon called PSB in the round.
	Thirdly, all hon. Members would accept that the World Service is the jewel in the crown. Many of us are delighted at the World Service's proposals to introduce a new television service in the middle east, but I simply fail to understand why, for the sake of just £6 million, we cannot ensure that it becomes a 24-hour service, rather than the 12-hour service that is proposed.
	Now I come to the crucial issue of the licence fee. Like others, I am concerned by the undoubted delay in the Government's announcement of the licence fee. It worries me enormously that we will end up with two separate announcements—one about the charter and agreement and the other about the licence fee. Surely those announcement need to be brought together. In other words, we need a menu with prices.

Gerald Kaufman: I think the House will agree that under its new chairman, Michael Grade, and its new director-general, Mark Thompson, the BBC has made a fresh and encouraging start, and that the work they have done since their appointments is commendable.
	One thing that the BBC has done is make a major contribution to digital switchover through the innovation of Freeserve, following the failure of the ITV digital project. I pay tribute to Greg Dyke for his initiative in bringing that about. Another of his initiatives, also deserving of tribute, is the decision to move to the north-west. I am convinced that the BBC fully intends the move to go ahead. It would be idle of me to deny that there is disappointment in the city of Manchester over the provisional decision to move to Salford—I understand that that is likely to happen, although not overwhelmingly likely, as the BBC has still to make the final decisions—but whether the move is to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) or to Salford Quays, which is a superb area of innovation, what is important is the recognition that a new centre of media initiative and a new cluster of enterprise is being created. I pay tribute to the BBC for making it clear, very firmly, that it wants the move to the north-west to go ahead.
	It is obvious that all broadcasters face huge challenges. As a tax-funded public corporation, the BBC has a special responsibility in meeting those challenges. When the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I chaired before the election, looked into BBC charter renewal, we wanted—anticipating the possibility of a new 10-year charter—to think about the nature of the technological and content-related environment not just in 2006, but in 2016. Since the Committee reported and since the Government decided that the BBC should have that new 10-year charter, technological change has moved exponentially ahead within not much more than a year. Given the prospect of 10 more years following the end of this year, it is essential for the BBC, when making its plans, to take account of what Bernard Shaw had in mind in his play "Back to Methuselah" when he entitled the last act "As Far as Thought can Reach".
	Already, over the past few months, we have seen vast changes. A year ago, the iPod was an enviable cult object; today it is pretty universal. The downloading to mobile phones of news, information, entertainment and music is proceeding rapidly—and, as I have said, this is only the beginning.
	There is great concern—and rightly so—about the declining attention paid to the BBC and other conventional broadcasters by the young people who will be key participants in technological communication in the future. Anyone who moves around any of our cities, such as London or my own city of Manchester, will see young people wearing earphones and constantly looking at their mobile phones, not simply to make calls and send text messages but for all sorts of reasons. If the BBC is to be ahead of the game, as we all want it to be, and if it is to attract the kind of participation that will justify its being financed by a tax, it is essential for it to understand one thing. Although the concerns of many Members of Parliament are focused on the most conventional forms of BBC transmission, such as Radio 4, Radio 3 and even Radio 1 and Radio 2—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—those are now very small minority channels in comparison with what a large number of people are using the BBC and broadcasting for. The BBC must not simply keep pace with technological change; it must keep ahead of it.
	It is good that—as those of us who have been watching the World cup matches will have observed—the BBC has progressed to high-definition. So far it has one high-definition channel, and I hope that it will have many more. However, the BBC needs to take another careful look at its non-direct broadcasting activities. The interactive services that it provides on BBC News 24, for example, are miles behind what Sky provides. The BBC mechanism is very clumsy, whereas Sky's is very clear.
	At one time, the BBC's principal website was regarded as the pioneer for all such sites, receiving large numbers of hits. I fear that that is no longer so, and newspaper websites such as those of  The Guardian and  The Daily Telegraph are far ahead of what one gets from BBC Online. That is another matter that the BBC needs to consider.
	It is perfectly clear that we need a public service broadcasting corporation that is not funded by advertising. I am very glad that we have the public service Channel 4, which does a superb job, as does the More4 channel. Channel 5 is now doing very well with its innovative and cultural broadcasting, but the BBC is unique, because it is funded by a tax. The House of Commons has decided that there should be a new BBC charter, and it is extremely important that the BBC reciprocates by ensuring that it leads technological change.
	That must not happen just for its own sake, as the BBC must take account of social change in this country. More and more people—mainly but not exclusively young people—are creating their own visual and audio entertainment and information channels.
	The day has gone when people would sit in front of a box, or drive along in their cars, and be fed by what was provided. People now create what they want. In many ways, the proliferation of the addiction to mobile phones is maddening, but it shows that people have a new way of communicating, and that they want their own voices to be heard as much as they want to listen and be told things.
	On occasion, I have been considered to be something of a sceptic about the BBC, but we owe it a lot. However, as I have explained, I believe that it, in recompense and reciprocation, owes us a lot too.

John Whittingdale: I by thank my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for giving us this opportunity to debate the future of the BBC. Despite the Minister's claims about the number of debates that have been held and the scrutiny that has occurred, this is the House's first opportunity to debate it since the general election. We last debated it in March last year, when we considered the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I now chair, but which at that time was chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). It is a great pleasure to follow him this afternoon.
	Since then, the Government have published a White Paper on charter renewal, and the BBC has unveiled its bid for a licence fee settlement to cover the seven years from next April. The BBC's chairman and director-general chose to reveal the bid for the first time during the course of their evidence to the Select Committee last October. The Select Committee was able to question them about their plans, and I congratulate the BBC on a bold and brave initiative, which I hope will be maintained.
	The BBC bid was for 2.3 per cent. each year, over and above inflation. At the time, it looked excessive, but increasing pressures since on commercial broadcasters have made it look even more disproportionate. However, if we are to consider the case for a licence fee increase, we must look at the case made at the time of the previous licence fee settlement. That was for 1.5 per cent. over inflation each year for seven years from 2000, and has led to the licence fee rising by well over a third since 1997. Yet the income from the fee has risen much faster, as the number of homes has increased steadily as well. As a result, the BBC's total licence fee income has grown by more than 50 per cent.
	At the time of the previous settlement, the then Secretary of State said that he was
	"not going to allow the BBC the massive injection of funds that it has sought from the licence fee—an increase reaching more than £700 million a year by 2006."—[ Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1239.]
	In fact, the BBC's income in the period will have risen by very nearly £1 billion, so it is no wonder that the present director-general said—when he was in another capacity at Channel 4—that the BBC had been bathing in a jacuzzi of cash.
	At the same time, the funds available to commercial broadcasters have been squeezed. There has been a proliferation of digital channels, and the switch to digital has meant that the main commercial broadcasters have seen a steady decline in the market share that they command and, as a result, in their advertising revenue as well.
	Moreover, advertising spend has been diverted to online services. Yesterday, the Select Committee heard that TV's share of advertising had declined from 32 per cent. in 2004 to a forecast 27 per cent., while internet advertising has grown by 50 per cent. The introduction of personal video recorders and timeshifting will exert even greater pressure on commercial television. For that reason, the BBC's claims that, even after the licence fee settlement, it will have a smaller share of media revenues is at best disingenuous, since that includes internet advertising.
	In 1998, ITV and Channel 4 revenues exceeded the licence fee income by £300 million. Indeed, the BBC argued at the time of the previous settlement that it needed an increase to keep up with commercial television. Now, the income from the licence fee is significantly greater than the combined advertising income of ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, GMTV, S4C and all their associated channels.
	That is the context in which this licence fee bid must be judged. The BBC is already by far the biggest player: an increase of the size suggested would distort the market still further, and place it in too dominant a position.
	Of course, the BBC claims that the licence fee is good value for money. That is supported by some opinion surveys, but as long as the fee remains a compulsory television tax that people have no choice but to pay, it is difficult to judge its acceptability.
	The Government claim that the licence fee is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the Minister said earlier that that is achieved through the negative procedure. In no other area is a £3 billion tax increased by a procedure that does not allow amendment and which is often not even debated. When it is debated, the proceedings last 90 minutes in a Committee Room upstairs.
	The negative procedure also means that Parliament has no ability to approve or disapprove particular uses of licence fee money. We know that the BBC has asked for an increase of 2.3 per cent., but that does not include the cost of the assistance package. My Committee, like others, took the view that the licence fee is a social rather than a broadcasting cost, and that it should therefore be financed from Exchequer funds. I regret that the Government are unwilling to accept that.

John Whittingdale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have very little time.
	We still do not know the total cost of the assistance package, but it will represent an extra amount on top of the licence fee. It will not be just a stealth tax, but rather a stealth poll tax, as the licence fee, as the motion correctly points out, hits low-income families hardest.
	The reason for that is a flaw in the licence fee itself. In the previous Parliament, the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton reported that the fee is regressive and unfair. In the long term, I do not think that it is sustainable, and I regret that the Government appear to have batted that question into the long grass for the course of the next licence fee period. I hope that the Government will consider at least some of the anomalies when they come to make their announcement. One in particular has been identified by the Select Committee—that people who pay the licence fee by instalments end up paying more than those who make a one-off payment. That is another way, therefore, in which on the lowest incomes have to bear the largest burden.
	I want to speak briefly about charter renewal. I welcome the creation of the BBC Trust; it improves the position of the governors, which was widely recognised as unsustainable after the Hutton report. However, Michael Grade had already put in place arrangements to distance the governors from the management of the BBC, so it is not clear how the new arrangement differs from what the BBC has already done. It does not resolve the underlying difficulty that the final arbiter of the behaviour of the BBC is a body that is part of the BBC. Ofcom has responsibility for tier 1 questions, but not for the key areas of the BBC's public service remit—impartiality and fairness. Nowhere is that more important than in the area of the BBC's creative futures plan.
	The world is changing rapidly, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out; people are accessing media via the internet, iPods and mobile phones. It is right that the BBC should make programmes available on whatever platform people choose to use, but the BBC's plans go considerably further. It is not just making its programmes available on different platforms; it proposes to introduce whole new services. To take just one example: the BBC plans to make news content available to mobile providers for nothing, so that the consumer will pay a charge only to the mobile operator and not to the news provider. When asked about the impact of that new service on ITN, the BBC told the Committee that ITN could finance the service through advertising, but advertising is not developed on mobile so that suggestion is wholly unrealistic. The result will be that the BBC service undercuts a commercial service before it has even got off the ground.
	As has been said, there are concerns about the BBC's ambitions in the area of local newspapers, the creative archive and MyBBC Player, and the fact that the BBC's licence fee bid is for £1.2 billion to finance new digital services means that there will be a major impact on the market. Under the new arrangements, the BBC's new services will be subject to a market impact assessment and a public value test, which is certainly a step forward. However, although Ofcom is due to carry out the market impact assessment, the final decision—the public value test—will rest with the BBC. By definition, that will be a subjective judgment. What criteria will the BBC apply to judge the public value of a new service when compared to the market? I share the view of my Front-Bench colleagues that it would have been better to give that decision to Ofcom rather than leaving it with the BBC. If the BBC is to make it, it is essential that each new individual service is subject to a public service licence and a market impact assessment. It is not good enough to have one service licence embracing all of them.
	The BBC is an immensely powerful organisation and is often a force for considerable good, but it needs to be subject to proper checks. The measures in the motion will achieve that.

Ian Stewart: I am a firm supporter of a strong, independent BBC. The BBC is a world-standard broadcaster of international renown and enjoys a high level of domestic satisfaction, which we should remember. We like the Beeb. I want to see the BBC grow, prosper and diversify.
	In 2004, the BBC gave a commitment to relocate some of its activities to the regions. That will complement the Government's strategy for investment in the regions, and the north-west is perfectly placed to nurture that creative investment and capitalise on it, which will be most beneficial to my Eccles constituents.
	In 2004, the BBC committed itself to establishing a state-of-the-art BBC centre in the Manchester area with
	"brilliant career and creative opportunities"
	moving London-based children's TV and radio—including CBBC and CBeebies—BBC Sport, Five Live and Five Live Sports Extra, new media headquarters, research and development and formal learning departments to the Manchester city region; moving an estimated 1,800 staff from London to the Manchester city region; increasing the amount of TV drama filmed outside London from 30 to 50 per cent. during the next charter period; and creating a media zone that could include other broadcasters, publishers and independent companies. All that was to be achieved by 2010.
	It is a wise commitment. In the past decade, cultural and economic development in the north-west has been increasing rapidly, and the area is now the busiest production centre outside London. The success of the BBC's investment will be central to sustaining the growth of the media industry and the regional economy. I shall summarise that growth. Filming in Manchester rose by 30 per cent in 2005-06, with 2005 being the busiest year ever. In the first quarter of this year, production in Merseyside reached £6.7 million, constituting a huge increase on the previous year. Following the opening of North West Vision's film office in Cumbria, a two-week shoot in the county was secured for the Hollywood feature film "Miss Potter", starring Renee Zellweger. The Cheshire-based company Mackinnon and Saunders won its first children's commission for the BBC after receiving development investment from North West Vision. One hundred and fifteen Lancashire-based crew and facilities companies with current TV credits have registered on the North West Vision database used by productions that need to employ crew and use facilities.
	Last week, the BBC announced in principle that it is proposing to establish a northern centre in Salford's MediaCity:UK, based at Salford Quays, subject to resolving some outstanding issues. The project must also pass the two tests of value for money for licence fee payers and affordability, so the BBC has said that a final decision cannot be taken until the licence fee settlement is known. There are lots of t's to be crossed, but everything still to play for.
	I do not blame the BBC for using its bargaining strength to get the best possible funding deal. As a former negotiator myself, I respect that tactic. However, although I support a reasonable increase in the licence fee, I point out to the BBC that the Salford MediaCity:UK is such an exciting, world-class development that its move there should be confirmed in any case. The move should go ahead whether or not there is an above-inflation increase in the licence fee.
	Although the new MediaCity:UK—about which I would like to say a little more—will be located in Salford, it will bring considerable benefits to the Greater Manchester area and the region as a whole, as I have just demonstrated. The project has the support of the Northwest Development Agency and a range of partners across the region. The vision is powerful: a globally significant, new media city to compete with emerging media cities in Seoul, Singapore and Dubai; and a modern, digital city for the UK, surrounded by four excellent universities, which will be the centre of BBC production on Salford Quays. Salford will have a silicon canal to match the US silicon valley and Scotland's silicon glen. It is estimated that the project will bring 15,500 jobs, and it includes a recording studio for the BBC Philharmonic orchestra, floating stages for concerts and theatre, studio and technical facilities for media industries, a media skills institute and a research academy. I support the proposal that the BBC should become a world player as a search engine, but I am also keen to see the corporation established as a media and communications-oriented digital global university.
	I understand that some BBC staff may be fearful of a move north. Relocations have to be managed positively and sensitively, but I believe that BBC workers will be pleasantly surprised by the varied and vibrant environment of Greater Manchester. I hope that the Government will give the BBC all the support it needs in that regard.
	To sum up, we need an early but considered licence fee decision from the Government. It is important to get that right. Even if the BBC does not achieve the licence fee it wants, it should carry out its commitment to relocate to the Manchester city region and be a partner in the development of the exciting new media city in Salford.
	I hope that the House will forgive me if I leave now, as I hope to contribute to the Westminster Hall debate on funding for local transport—yes, the new media city proposal will involve development of our successful Metrolink tram network to service the city and local people, so I shall go into the Government Lobby to oppose the Conservative motion.

Daniel Kawczynski: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart). I would like to say that he is a friend of mine. I like him very much and my wife is very fond of him as well, as he knows.
	The most important thing that I have picked up in the debate—I was listening carefully to what the Minister said—from the point of view of politicians and the scrutiny of Parliament with regards to the BBC, is the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He called for a greater role for that Committee in scrutinising the BBC licence fee. I was greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), when he assured us that the next Conservative Government would allow greater interaction from the Public Accounts Committee on that issue. I am still somewhat mystified by the Minister's response. I do not really understand what he said in that regard, so I shall write to him.
	The BBC is a tremendous asset for our country. The first time that I realised its importance was on a visit to Warsaw in 1983, immediately after the martial law imposed by General Jaruzelski. Many of my friends in Warsaw were listening intently to the BBC World Service, which brought a true reflection of the world to those oppressed people—it brought them the reality. It also brought great hope to people behind the iron curtain. It could be argued that the BBC World Service helped to bring about the revolutions in eastern Europe that finally drove out the communist oppression that had held them for such a long time. People could not trust their local radio. I feel a great shame, as I said in my earlier intervention, that the service to eastern Europe will be cut. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary was defeated by 24 votes to one in her intention to stop the BBC and other channels broadcasting the events of the Council of Ministers, because broadcasting has an important role to play in the scrutiny of this Parliament and of what goes on in Brussels and the European Parliament.
	The BBC's pedigree is tremendous and it gives it the opportunity to challenge CNN and other American broadcasting corporations when it comes to being the global voice of broadcasting. That is important in today's global world. I know that President Chirac of France is intent on spending hundreds of millions of euros on trying to come up with an equivalent to the BBC World Service and CNN. He realises that France is losing out on a tremendous amount of influence globally because it does not have an equivalent. The French version of events is not being broadcast around the world.
	The BBC World Service is excellent and is very broad in scope. Its programmes involve many discussions about political, social and economic issues all around the world. Recently, I watched a television programme on the BBC World Service that was extremely incisive about the new political developments in Bolivia. I wish that we had more of that type of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. We need to have more programmes like that to teach our children about other countries and cultures. We live in an increasingly multicultural United Kingdom and we need to make sure that our young citizens know about the good things around the world, rather than just listening to the coverage at the moment, which is so negative about world events.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, about the Government in particular—quite right. I should say negative but effective and correct. The programmes that we tune into on the domestic BBC tend to focus on problem areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of great conflict. There is a tremendous amount of good going on around the world, particularly in developing countries. The BBC World Service does a good job of highlighting that and I regret that the domestic BBC does not follow suit.
	There have been suggestions that the licence fee could rise to £180 by 2013. Many vulnerable groups would struggle to pay that sort of fee. I applaud the Government for the action that they have taken to introduce free TV licences for those over 75. I hope that if the licence fee does go up to £180, the next Conservative Government—of course, we will have a Conservative Government by then—will ensure that other vulnerable groups are helped to pay that fee.
	The impartiality of the BBC is critical to the future success of the corporation, and its impartiality has been debated on a number of occasions. I remember in 1986, as a passionate young Conservative, being furious about the BBC coverage of the bombing of Tripoli in Libya. I believed at the time that the coverage was extremely biased. However, I was greatly encouraged by the way in which the BBC exposed the Labour Government over the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the way in which it stood by its guns over the issue. That has led me to believe that although there are times when political parties feel that the BBC is acting against their interests, overall it is impartial.

Edward Vaizey: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that an independent report into the BBC's coverage of the middle east showed that it tends to report the middle east in an extremely biased way and is very anti-Israeli? That report has been completely glossed over by the BBC governors.

John Grogan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who spoke with great verve and style about the international role of the BBC and the importance of the BBC's independence, as well as costume drama. I will concentrate on perhaps the oldest service that the BBC has provided, although it is one in which there has been plenty of innovation in recent years: BBC radio. Before I do so, however, I wish to make a few observations.
	It is possible to overstate the strength and power of the BBC. I respond directly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—we have discussed this matter before. We should consider the total industry revenue. I admit that advertising has declined in the commercial sector, but Sky's subscription revenue and online revenues are extremely buoyant. When Mrs. Thatcher left office, the BBC had more than 40 per cent. of total market revenue, but now it has 23 per cent. Even if the BBC got what it wanted from the licence fee settlement, best estimates suggest that it would have a fifth of industry revenue. It is thus worth putting the power of the BBC in perspective.
	As the Minister pointed out, the licence fee has fallen as a proportion of people's income in recent years, and it will probably continue to do so. Importantly, the licence fee has also fallen as a percentage of the income of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population, although that is not to say that it is not a burden on many households.
	We must consider the overall output of our system of broadcasting, of which the BBC is such an important part. In Britain, $75 a head is spent on home-produced programming each year, which is more than is spent in the United States and Germany. That is a product of a strong BBC and a strong licence fee.
	We have heard about the BBC's plans to innovate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked about the success of Freeview, and we have heard about the success of BBC Online under Greg Dyke's predecessor, John Birt. Those proposals were controversial in their time. The commercial sector asked whether it was right for the BBC to go into those areas, just as it now asks whether it is right for the BBC to create an open and a creative archive so that licence fee payers can access BBC content. People ask whether it is right that the BBC produces local television news. There are many options for partnerships with commercial interests. For example, in the west midlands, where local television news is being pioneered, the BBC has signed a joint letter of intent with Trinity Mirror, the commercial organisation that runs the main evening newspapers in Birmingham and Coventry.
	It is thus possible for the BBC and the commercial sector to be partners, but I would urge hon. Members to be sceptical about some of the commercial sector's claims that the BBC crowds it out. Since the BBC's inception, it has been in competition with the private sector and has thus distorted the market. BBC Parliament is probably the only BBC product that does not distort the market because it does not have a commercial competitor— [ Interruption. ] It is unlikely to have one, too.
	To respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, is it not one of the great glories of the independence of the BBC that all different views expressed in this debate, some of which will be critical of the BBC, will be reported on "Today in Parliament"? After the Hutton inquiry, output at all levels of the BBC reflected the different views expressed. Sky News would never broadcast a discussion on the Murdoch empire or the fact that no one is watching test match cricket on Sky and that access to one of our crown jewels of sport is thus being reduced. One of the great things about the BBC is that it has such independence and thus no thought can be unspoken.
	Let me move on to radio, as I promised. The commercial sector makes three criticisms of BBC radio: it is too big; it should be more involved with the independent sector on programming; and Radio 1 and Radio 2 should perhaps be privatised. It is true that the BBC has a 56 per cent. share of the radio market. Two or three years ago, the BBC and the commercial sector were saying that given the advent of more stations due to digital radio and the powers in the Communications Act 2003 to allow commercial radio stations to merge, the BBC's share would have gone down considerably by this stage. To an extent, the BBC is embarrassed by its success. The situation reflects not only the decline in the independent sector's advertising revenue, but the sector's lack of ambition. The programming on many commercial stations is in exactly the same format.
	The Commercial Radio Companies Association has a case to make, but sometimes it overstates it. For example, its briefing for today's debate says:
	"Radio 2 has refocused towards younger listeners."
	BBC Radio 2 has changed in recent years, so I wondered whether the allegation that it had suddenly abandoned the middle aged and elderly of Britain and gone for 15 to 24-year-olds was true. The audience of Radio 2 is very homogenous. The average age of listeners to Terry Wogan is 52, as is the average age of listeners to Jeremy Vine. The average age of listeners to Jonathan Ross—we have heard about him—is 52, and the average age of listeners to Steve Wright is 50. That makes me feel like a young man again.
	Radio 2 has innovated and has a broad range of programming. Radio 1 and Radio 2 play much more original music than the commercial sector and have a much richer range of programming. We have heard about the importance of involving youth in the BBC and the media. "Newsbeat", which is broadcast on BBC Radio 1, is the news programme that attracts more 16 to 24-year-olds than any other, as it has done for many generations. In debates in previous Sessions, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen talked about privatising BBC Radio 1 and Radio 2. I am glad that we have not heard such comments today. Such privatisation would be a shame, not least for the commercial sector, because unless the advertising market expanded by 25 per cent., many existing commercial stations would lose out.
	Let me say a word about the contribution of the independent sector to BBC radio. I am pleased that BBC radio is committed to more than doubling the proportion of hours that it will guarantee to independents. It says:
	"The floor will move from around 2,600 hours at present to 7,300 hours by 2007/8".
	Although the outsourcing of television programmes to independents has been successful, it is more difficult to outsource radio programmes. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the independent sector is still developing in the radio market and much of radio is live. It would probably be difficult to outsource a lot of programming on BBC local radio, which is one of the jewels in the crown of BBC radio that reaches all our communities. Indeed, there might be cost advantages in keeping programming in-house, and I am pleased that the BBC is addressing the matter. Some radio sport coverage is being outsourced. For example, the coverage of grand prix has been outsourced this year for the first time.
	I hope that the Government will continue to value both the international BBC World Service, which, as we have heard, has record audience figures, and BBC radio itself. I am pleased that it looks like we will have much-needed competition from the commercial sector on speech radio for the first time. If Channel 4 successfully gains digital space, it will be good for the BBC and will probably reduce its 56 per cent. share of the market slightly.
	I conclude by saying a word about BBC Sport and the importance of having a well funded BBC to take on subscription TV in particular. It is a joy in Britain that all the World cup matches are available on BBC or ITV, unlike in Germany, where half are on subscription TV, or in Spain, where more than half are on subscription TV. That is not an accident but the result of an intervention in the broadcasting market, as a result partly of a desire to show the crown jewels of sport, of which the World cup is one, and partly of the fact that we have a sufficiently funded BBC licence fee that it can compete in the market and secure such rights. Is not it a joy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to watch some of the games without adverts? Is not it a joy that every pub and restaurant in London can put up a TV and everyone can watch them? Is not that a contrast with cricket, which is only shown on subscription TV and has only 200,000 viewers on Sky? Long may the BBC have a sufficiently funded system that, according to the old adage, it can make the good popular and the popular good.

Pete Wishart: I shall confine my remarks to the future of the BBC as it applies to Scotland, which is perhaps not unsurprising. It is fortuitous that we are holding the debate because I do not think that the BBC has been as irrelevant—it is almost approaching irritating—to the people of Scotland as it is now. It might surprise a few hon. Members to know that the vast majority of viewers in Scotland do not want or require an early update on the progress of Wayne Rooney's foot or Michael Owen's knee. Sometimes we like watching our football games with the real World cup contenders—the Argentinas, the Netherlands and the Portugals—without constant reference to the English football team. Perhaps at half-time we could get an analysis of the game that we are watching, not some extended update about the progress of the England team. All that is fine for English Members—it is great that they are getting that; it is fantastic, right and appropriate—but Scotland does not need the commentary on another nation, but that is exactly what we are getting.
	We can use the red button on our remote to get different BBC commentaries, but they range in their support for England from the mildly hysterical to the apoplectic. The button that we in Scotland are using more and more is the volume button to turn down some of that nonsense.
	While that is merely irritating, it starts to get a bit more serious when it comes to news coverage, which is increasingly irrelevant to public life in Scotland. The crux of all that is the need, desire and real requirement of a Scottish 6 o'clock news that will adequately reflect Scottish public life and political life post-devolution, with our own Scottish Government.
	The history of that campaign has been protracted and is one of the greatest stories of political subterfuge in the past few years. We witnessed the actions of the former director general, John Birt, who took it upon himself to make it a political mission to stop the "Scottish 6" happening. He saw it as a great threat to the Union of the United Kingdom. To support his cause, he involved the most powerful allies he could, including the Prime Minister. John Birt is clear in his autobiography what he got from him. He went to the Prime Minister, who was quick, as ever, to grasp the case. "Let's fight", the Prime Minister said. He of course enlisted the help of Peter Mandelson, who at the time was Minister without Portfolio and his most trusted aide-de-camp, and he worked with the BBC on a plan of action to stop the "Scottish 6".
	That was later confirmed in the diaries of Lance Price when he recorded on Friday 30 October 1998 that:
	"John Birt has been in touch. He wants to stop BBC Scotland doing their own six o'clock news on TV and wants help leaking a survey showing most Scots don't want it."
	It was collusion at the highest level between the Government and the BBC to stop a "Scottish 6". That is the campaign that the "Scottish 6" was exposed to. It is entirely at odds with the commitment in the BBC's royal charter. It is intended to be an independent corporation. That is why it remains such a hot issue. Most recently, the new director general of the BBC once again ruled out a "Scottish 6", saying that there was no clamour in Scotland for such a service.

Jim Devine: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a hot issue in Scotland. I have been an MP only since October, but I have never had one letter or heard from one constituent, one friend or one individual on the subject.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not engaged in debate in Scotland on that. It is supported across the political spectrum, not just within political parties, but in civic society as well. There is a determination that a "Scottish 6" is a requirement. Opinion polls clearly show that the majority of the Scottish people want it. Let me assure him that come the run-up to the next Scottish parliamentary elections, we will hear a lot about the future of Scottish broadcasting. We believe—this is fundamental and important—that we require our own broadcasting in Scotland to develop the talent in our creative industries. There is a great source of people working within the television sector in Scotland.
	Concessions were given. We were denied the "Scottish 6", but were given "Newsnight Scotland"—a 20-minute opt-out at the end of "Newsnight". Some of my less charitable colleagues refer to it as Newsnicht, but it has been supremely successful. It has more viewers than its traditional UK-wide programme. People are tuning into "Newsnight Scotland"—

Pete Wishart: Yes, of course.
	Those viewing figures are reflected across the spectrum, whether it is "Reporting Scotland" or the ITN version. People are turning on and tuning in to see Scottish news coverage because they believe that it is important that their national life is seen on the television.
	It is a challenge to the BBC. Why does it not accept that? I have written to Scottish Television to say, "Get ahead of the BBC on this one. If you provide a Scottish 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock news service, you could steal a march on the BBC. Grasp the thistle. Go for it, Scottish Television." It would find that it could probably steal a march on the BBC by securing the viewers for the rest of the evening.
	Furthermore, we can do that on radio. We have the supremely important and successful "Good Morning Scotland" programme, which competes very effectively with the "Today" programme—in fact, it beats it in terms of listeners. They want a diet of Scottish news in the morning and it had some 11.2 per cent. of audience share in Scotland in 2004. The question has to be asked: if we can do that so successfully on radio and corner such a large share of the market, why can we not do it on television?
	We then have to ask: what do Scottish viewers get out of the 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock bulletins? Aberdeen university asked that question, researched it, and came to the depressing conclusion of not very much at all. Just 2 per cent. of stories on the 6 o'clock news network could roughly be called Scottish compared with 34 per cent. of those that could be considered English. It found that there was probably 10 times more English cricket on the BBC 6 o'clock news than there was Scottish politics. We are constantly served a diet of irrelevant news stories, which headline the 6 or 10 o'clock news. They are to do with English health, English education or English criminal justice, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish people. In fact, they are as irrelevant to the Scottish people as the health and education policies decided by the French Government.
	The people of Scotland pay their fair share of the BBC licence fee and are right to demand that BBC programming reflects their interest on an equally fair basis. There is at least recognition— [Interruption.] Does the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland want to intervene?

Pete Wishart: There is recognition at last by some of the people and players in the BBC. The former national governor for Scotland said that there was "some way to go" in the BBC
	"to properly reflect the devolved nature of Scotland in national programming."
	Michael Grade at last recognises that there is
	"an imbalance and a lack of sensitivity"
	towards Scotland in the BBC's coverage of the UK in its national news bulletins: quite, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It is not just in the core areas of news and sport that Scotland is short-changed by the BBC. We are told that the new licence fee—the massive inflation-busting hike—is to pay for all the new interactive services that are supposed to be put in place, but many of my constituents cannot access the new digital services. However, they will be asked to pay an increased licence fee.
	We have also looked at the disparity of what is collected in Scotland through the licence fee and what we are given back in return. In 2003-04, the licence fee raised was £2.798 billion, of which the Scottish 8.5 per cent. pro rata contribution was £246.2 million. However, Scotland has 9 per cent. of all UK households, suggesting that the licence revenue from Scotland could be as much as £251.8 million. In contrast, BBC Scotland's income was a mere £160.4 million, of which £10.1 million came from external sources. Under the current arrangements, Scottish broadcasting expenditure is £32 per person. If the full revenues were realised, Scotland's figure could be up to £50 per person.
	If we compare like-sized countries throughout Europe—comparing Scotland to, say, independent Ireland or Denmark—it is clear that less money is spent and fewer jobs are created in Scotland's creative sector. RTE in Ireland, for example, employs 2,169 people and DR in Denmark employs 3,464 people. That compares with 1,427 employed by the BBC in Scotland. Clearly Scotland is getting a poor return from its licence fee contribution under the devolved settlement, in which broadcasting remains under the control of Westminster and the BBC is controlled from London. If every pound paid by Scottish licence payers were reflected in jobs, Scotland would see an additional 690 broadcasting jobs for no additional cost.
	A distinctive BBC in Scotland is now absolutely required to allow us to promote our indigenous culture and to portray Scotland to the rest of the world. A distinct channel would be our window to the world, reflecting our people's priorities and playing an integral part in everyday Scottish life. By establishing a sustainable television industry north of the border, high-value jobs would be created, boosting our economy and offering opportunities for the skilled media graduates. The charter review provides an opportunity to go down that road, making the BBC in Scotland truly autonomous, giving Scotland control over its broadcasting, increasing the capacity in Scotland and ensuring that the BBC in Scotland reflects the cultural life of our nation.

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. I accept his point, but he characterised me wrongly. I accept that the BBC can crowd out new industries. Indeed, as a Minister in the Department of Education I fought unsuccessfully to try to prevent it from doing just that in one sector. Does he agree, however, that it is important that the BBC is in such areas, partly to provide the pool of talented people who can if necessary leave the organisation to set up creative industries in this fast-changing world?

Philip Dunne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), and I congratulate her on bringing the passing of "Top of the Pops" into this debate. She is right say that that illustrates that programming has to change and evolve regularly. It is extremely rare to find a BBC programme that has endured as long as "Top of the Pops", and personally, I see its passing as a sad reflection of my advancing middle age, as much as anything else.
	In the time available to me, I should like to touch on a few points, the first of which is the size of the licence fee. The Minister said that the Government are going to take time to get it right and that the proposed increase will not be excessive. I regret to say that he did not tell us the criteria by which that increase will be judged, or the methodology that the Secretary of State intends to use in arriving at the eventual figure. The Minister did claim that the licence fee has declined as a percentage of household income in recent years—I think that that was the comparison he made; I fail to recall exactly what period he was referring to—but that is not a very spectacular claim at a time when the cost of media hardware and software has been falling around the world. It is because costs have been coming down, thanks to technological advances, that there is such a proliferation of alternative outlets for media use, so there is no great argument over whether the licence fee, as a proportion of household income, should be coming down. By definition, it should be, so such a decline is no justification for the above-inflation increases that the BBC is proposing.
	Why should the BBC get the generous settlement that it seeks for the next seven years? It is looking for twice inflation, guaranteed for seven years. In the context of any other economic endeavour, that would be extraordinary. Across the commercial sector, any sector would be delighted to have a guaranteed source of income of twice inflation during an era of rapid price deflation in most of the markets in which it operates.
	Let us compare another sector, the water industry, which is subject to regulatory oversight by a regulator, Ofwat. Water bills are affected by the K factor. In the first years after the water industry was privatised, that meant inflation minus a K factor. Subsequently that has changed to a positive K factor, but not to the level sought by the BBC. All that took place at a time when the water industry had an enormous capital expenditure obligation to fulfil each year to renew its decaying pipe infrastructure, which had been in significant decline. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) tell us what comparators the Government will use when they come to set the licence fee?
	In an intervention on the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), I raised the issue of transparency. I very much welcome the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) to bring the BBC within the remit of the National Audit Office under the next Conservative Government and to allow the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise all spending of the licence fee, and not just by permission. I was disappointed by the Minister's reaction. He was signally unable to give a single example to support his contention that that would mean some undermining of editorial integrity. I will take up his generous offer and write to him, to give him an opportunity to explain what he has in mind.
	There is no doubt that as technology constantly evolves and the outlets for BBC output expand, there is a need for regulatory oversight of this increasingly substantial amount of effective tax, as we have heard today. That in itself justifies the full scrutiny powers of the National Audit Office.
	I shall touch briefly on two aspects of what the licence fee should cover. The Minister spoke about digital switch-over. It is appropriate for the BBC to have responsibility to secure coverage for those who are paying for the service. I raise the matter with an eye on my constituency and my own household. At present, analogue access is poor on both sides of the Welsh border, including in my constituency in Shropshire, where many households, including my own, do not receive a clear signal through an aerial.  [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) includes Shrewsbury in that category. I am sure he is right. In my home it is not possible to receive BBC Radio Shropshire either, because of the topography.
	At present, I understand, there are no plans for the digital signal to expand its coverage when the analogue signal is switched off. It is entirely reasonable that part of the increase in licence fee should be used to bring TV coverage to people who are paying their licence fees, so that we achieve 100 per cent. coverage. It is extraordinary in the 21st century that we are proposing a new system of technology that does not allow for universal coverage.

Philip Dunne: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I have very little time.
	On the second service aspect, Labour Members referred to the pilot local TV service that has been introduced in the west midlands, covering six counties, including Shropshire. For hon. Members who are not familiar with it, the service provides a 10-minute per hour magazine-style feature of four to six packages. It is a high-quality service, as one would expect from the BBC. It is welcome to those of us who occasionally feature on it and, I assume, to those who are able to view it.
	The service is of considerable concern to the commercial media outlets. Representations have been made by local newspapers in particular, whose revenues are under pressure from the decline in advertising revenues, about which we have heard. It is important that a market impact assessment is undertaken on the impact of the local TV service before we find ourselves setting up a tax-funded monopoly that crowds out other local outlets.

Tobias Ellwood: It will take me about one minute to express my thoughts.
	I am glad that we are having this debate, although I am curious where the Secretary of State is today, because we have still not had a response from the Government on that front.
	We are all products of the BBC, which I grew up with. One of my heroes was Brian Cant on "Playschool", and I am sure that everyone was moved when John Noakes's dog died on "Blue Peter". I also remember when "Nationwide" flummoxed us all by giving us the impression that spaghetti grows on trees. We take an interest in the BBC not only because we are taxpayers, but because it has been part of our lives throughout the past few decades.
	Why has the National Audit Office been ruled out of having an accounting profile in looking after the BBC? The Minister was asked twice to give an example of when the editorial content of the BBC would be challenged if the NAO were to play a role.
	Although the debate has been thorough, we need another, because we have identified more questions than answers. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) will reflect on some of those questions when he winds up. We still do not know how the trust will be made up, how accountability will be established, why the NAO will not have a role or who will pay the spectrum charge.
	Time is running out, but I hope that we will have more opportunities to debate that important aspect of British society.

Malcolm Moss: No, I will not give way. It is normal courtesy for the Minister who is leading on an Opposition day to say why the Secretary of State is not present.
	The Minister has said that the BBC will get the settlement that it needs to deliver public service broadcasting, a sentiment with which we can all agree, but without proper debate the charter review and licence fee settlement will not enjoy universal or even majority support. He boasted of the unprecedented consultation conducted by his Department, but are the Government and the BBC actually listening? We cannot have a proper debate without openness and transparency, particularly in the definition of what actually constitutes public service broadcasting and in the detailed scrutiny of the figures and planning assumptions behind the BBC's application for an unprecedented increase in its licence fee.
	Indeed, the Minister seems miffed that we have called the debate, which was warmly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Eccles (Ian Stewart). It is no argument to say that the Government are calling a debate on the BBC next month, because that debate will only cover charter renewal and not the licence fee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has already mentioned the DCMS website, but the Minister failed adequately to deal with his point. The section of the DCMS website entitled "BBC charter review" states that the charter review is expected to be completed in mid-2006. It also states:
	"Mid 2006 Licence Fee level agreed"
	and—this is the crunch point—
	"Mid 2006 Parliamentary debate on Charter and Agreement."
	In other words, both the charter and the licence fee were expected to be on the table for next month's debate.
	On 6 June, however, the Secretary of State, who was speaking to the all-party group on the media at a Channel 4 bash, said that the decision would be made towards the end of the year. Why did the media section of  The Guardian state that that comment scotched speculation that a deal might be concluded before Parliament goes into its summer recess? The speculation was on the DCMS website. Mid-2006 does not mean October and November, but June and July—when Parliament is sitting, not when it is in recess.
	The DCMS website gives the game away. Something has happened between the publication of that and what the Minister said today and the Secretary of State said at the drinks bash the other evening. The real reason is that the DCMS has been rocked by criticism from the independent commercial sector. The PKF report commissioned by the Department, which is yet again mired in an ongoing difference of opinion with the Treasury, concluded:
	"there are a number of areas which point towards a significant need for discussion in regard to the BBC's Red Book bid for the licence fee settlement for the next period. We consider that our detailed report contains specific information for the Government to progress discussions with the BBC which would point to a lower settlement than currently sought. There are, however, a number of areas, especially in relation to digital switchover, where figures can only be finalised following policy decisions by Government".
	In his excellent opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon called for several questions to be answered. We need proper scrutiny of the BBC through the National Audit Office, not the voluntary scheme that we have at the moment. What is the point of the NAO being told by the BBC when it can and cannot look into financial matters? The Minister said that the NAO should be involved in licence fee negotiations. Perhaps the Minister who responds could clarify what he meant by that. He said that it could be an attack on editorial independence, but he did not answer a straight question and give some examples of what he meant by that.
	Will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box next month, when we have the debate on the charter review, that all the figures featured in the Government's negotiations with the BBC will be public and transparent so that everyone can see what is going on? There has been a powerfully expressed view in the media that the bid offered by the BBC in October 2005 requesting the RPI plus 2.3 per cent. settlement presents no more than a superficial wish list of spending demands that is not grounded in adequate evidence or justification. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Review of the BBC Charter said of the BBC's costings that they are
	"rudimentary and could be significantly reduced...the BBC has admitted that the figure in the bid was based on the easiest calculation possible rather than on a real estimate of how best value could be provided."
	The PKF report found that
	"costings used to support the investment programme are generally best estimates...in the past five years...the BBC...has delivered only marginal cash releasing organizational efficiency savings".
	Several Members pointed out that the extra money going to the BBC in future might distort the marketplace and stifle innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that it would crowd out competition and asked why Ofcom will have only a limited input in looking into BBC practices. According to the way in which the charter review is worded, the BBC Trust will act as both poacher and gamekeeper. Licences for online services seem to be lumped together whereas, as several hon. Members have said, each online activity should have its own specific licence.
	A report published last month by the consultancy, Indepen, commissioned by ITV, said that the BBC's bid risked fuelling "super-inflation" in the recruitment of on-screen talent. It also claimed that the proposed above-inflation rise in the licence fee would hit lower-income families harder and contradicted the BBC's claim that the cost would fall as a percentage of disposable income.
	I have only had 10 minutes and there is much more to say, but I need to leave 10 minutes for the Under-Secretary's winding-up speech. It is pleasure to see the Secretary of State in her place. However, it would have been far better if she had been here at the start to deal with the Government's lack of response on the subject.

David Lammy: The debate has been stimulating and pre-empts the debate that we scheduled for next month. Some constructive—but also not so constructive—contributions were made on a range of issues.
	During the charter review, we found a great appetite for discussing the BBC among the range of stakeholders and the public. It is clearly one of the nation's most trusted and loved institutions, which touches the lives of almost everyone in the country. That appetite has been reflected in the breadth of debate today and the wider parliamentary and public discussion that has taken place in the past two-and-a-half years. Hon. Members will have another opportunity to debate the new charter and agreement in full. That will provide further openings for hon. Members to make their points.
	The policies in the White Paper that are given life in the new charter and agreement provide for a strong BBC, independent of Government but accountable to licence fee payers. They provide for a BBC that will co-exist with a vibrant and dynamic commercial sector, which is the envy of the world. They also provide for a BBC that can continue to fulfil its role as a trusted guide, bringing the benefits of new technologies to audiences.
	The BBC has always played such a role, from the earliest days of radio, to black-and-white and then colour television, to FM radio, digital television and radio and the internet. We have much for which to thank the BBC. In many ways, it has grown the market. That is why I do not agree with the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who contests that Mark Thompson should be ambitious to ensure that the BBC competes with the best in digital and online services.
	We have heard a great deal today from Opposition Members, especially the hon. Members for East Devon and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), about a lack of parliamentary involvement in setting the licence fee. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary set out in a compelling case, apart from the fact that Parliament has the right to object to changes in the licence fee, the process so far has been characterised by an openness not previously experienced under any Government. I remind Conservative Members that since the BBC's inception, most charter reviews have been conducted under their Administrations. There has been more openness under the Labour Government than ever before.
	The public have told us that they do not want Parliament to have more control than it currently has. That raises wider issues beyond the scope of the debate, but it means that the focus of the argument has been, rightly in the Government's view, on the public rather than the parliamentary sphere. However, in that context I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on the BBC Charter Review in another place, whose thorough scrutiny over a lengthy period has contributed much to the debate. I must not overlook the work of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, whose review in 2004, towards the start of the process of charter review, set the tone. We are especially indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), whose characteristically robust approach was of considerable influence.
	Today, my right hon. Friend set out, in an insightful and intelligent speech, the opportunities and challenges that the BBC and the media more widely face as technologies change. We agree that the BBC must be able to respond and even lead the changes to stay relevant to licence fee payers. It is also important that the BBC does not stifle growth and development in the commercial sector. These principles are at the heart of the new charter and agreement.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was supportive of the new arrangements to the extent that he agreed that we should keep the licence fee. He also agreed about the role of—

Hugo Swire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am left with no alternative but to raise a point of order as the Minister will not let me intervene on him. He has raised a number of points, not least on the delay in the announcement of the licence fee. As you have heard, this was announced by the Secretary of State, who has now honoured us with her presence, albeit at a drinks party rather than in Parliament. Neither she nor any other Minister has given any proper explanation as to why they were unable to attend this debate. I understand that the Secretary of State was at the lottery monitor conference this morning in London, but she was spotted at a nearby restaurant between the hours of 1 and 2 o'clock, when she could readily have been attending this debate to do her job—

David Lammy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford raised the issue of the BBC's income increasing by £1 billion. Much of its additional income is due to its own efforts to reduce evasion and cut collection costs, which must be a good thing. Over the period, the range of services offered by the BBC has grown and licence fee payers and the public say that they support that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) gave an engaging speech about the importance of the BBC's move to the north-west to that region. Underlying his comments was his deep concern, as we would expect, with issues of social inclusion. We rightly welcome the latest indications from the BBC governors that they are serious about moving significant amounts of productions to centres outside London. The governors' announcement on 15 June to give Salford preferred bidder status—
	Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con)  rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Caroline Spelman: Under the Labour Administration, I am extremely concerned about people contemplating building an annexe to their home or a conservatory. With his expertise in local government finance, the right hon. Gentleman is probably only all too aware that such extensions are precisely the attributes to a home that his Government have every intention of incorporating as part of their council tax rebanding exercise.

Tim Loughton: Is my hon. Friend aware that something more insidious is going on in places such as Worthing and areas in the south? Developers are emboldened to offer premiums of at least 50 per cent. on the market value to the first house in a street of premium family homes. They then go next door and do the same deal, going as far along the road as possible doing the same thing. They apply for planning permission, which is turned down by the local council as the local authority, so they appeal. Their appeal is upheld on the basis of the Government's new density policies and a block of flats is built, with 30 or 40 new inhabitants and many extra cars, and the extra stress on the infrastructure causes havoc.

Caroline Spelman: I share my hon. Friend's great concern about the way in which the Government's housing policy perversely results in the neglect of considerable tracts of land in the great city of Birmingham, which both our constituencies shoulder, in favour of the back garden development that has ravaged his constituency and mine. I echo his comments about the obstruction shown by Government Whips to an important private Member's Bill. I hope that it will not be similarly obstructed at its Second Reading on 14 July.

James Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons local communities feel so disempowered in the whole debate is the fact that decisions are being taken out of their hands? The decisions are being taken in Whitehall by people who do not know the area or the pressure on local communities.

Nicholas Soames: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend, but does she accept that none of those developments are sustainable without proper investment in infrastructure? Whether we are talking about an inner-city area or East Grinstead in my constituency, where 2,500 houses will be built on the Government's whim without any additional investment in infrastructure, how will such development improve people's quality of life?

Richard Benyon: On the safeguards provided by the wording, the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is sitting on the Front Bench, wrote a letter to  The Daily Telegraph not long ago saying that the safeguards are sufficient to enable local authorities to protect sites. When I showed that letter to planners in West Berkshire council, however, they said that they are being as robust as possible, but whenever they feel that a development is inappropriate in the way in which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has just described, it gets overruled on appeal because of the ODPM wording. The matter is centrally controlled, and the safeguards described in the letter from the Minister for Housing and Planning, which the Secretary of State has just voiced, are not happening on the ground.

Andrew George: In the spirit of political consensus mentioned by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I am pleased that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the trend is not new. It is certainly not new in my constituency, where gardens have been built on over the past 20 years according to my records. If the Secretary of State accepts that planning is sadly fuelled more by greed than by need, will she accept that people do not want buildings in their back gardens? They want the money? Have the Government reflected on the point that significant premiums are added to land value and that the community might want to share the additional income generated by the award of planning permission?

Andrew Gwynne: As well as the inappropriate developments that have been mentioned, popular urban areas such as parts of my constituency physically have no development space. We are almost completely surrounded by green belt that we want to protect, so that often sensitive and sympathetic infill development is the only way to provide housing where people want to live.

Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we collect figures for the percentage of new dwellings built on previously developed residential land. That fell from 20 per cent. in 1990 to 15 per cent. at the last available count. We also collect figures for the percentage of land used for new dwellings that is brownfield land, and that has fallen, too. The definition includes back gardens and patios, and houses that have been demolished and rebuilt. The figure shows a significant downturn since the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Margaret Moran: My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the need for flexibility in planning. Does she agree that it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) appeared to dismiss the possibility of home extensions in areas such as Luton, which are green girdled and have no space even for infill development? A large proportion of the community in my area—especially ethnic minority communities—is overcrowded and requires extension through back gardens to alleviate the severe problem.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes the important point that extending a house can often be the simplest and best way of meeting a need for more housing space and preventing overcrowding.
	The question that confronts us today is which party is willing to make the tough choices and decisions to deliver the extra homes that are needed. In the past 30 years, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of households but a 50 per cent. drop in house building. Current projections suggest that household formation will increase by 209,000 a year up to 2026. In contrast, approximately 168,000 additional homes were provided last year. That gap is unsustainable.

Ruth Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman knows of local authority areas where there is a genuine demand for new homes, but they want investment from the Government to support the necessary infrastructure, he should invite those local authorities to approach the Government and bid to be a new growth point. Yesterday, I announced the conclusion of the bidding round for new growth points. Many local authorities expressed an interest, but 22 had worked out detailed bids. They were keen for new houses to be built, and included the Tory-led council of the hon. Member for Meriden, which proposed new developments. In total, the proposals represent 80,000 new homes by 2016 on top of what is already planned.  [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that she supports that increase in housing supply.

Andrew Stunell: I welcome the Secretary of State to the debate. I also welcome the fact that we are debating this matter today, although I would have welcomed the debate that the Conservatives first promised even more. The subject was to have been the failure of the Government's housing and planning policy, but that has rather quickly been slid over in favour of the removal of gardens from brownfield definition. They started off with a titanic ambition but ended up in the life raft.
	A number of outside bodies will also be disappointed by the rather narrow definition that the Conservatives have given to the debate today. I received a briefing from the Home Builders Federation this afternoon that had been issued on the assumption that we were going to debate the wider issue. However, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State introduce that wider issue, because it is important that we take the broader context of housing and planning fully into account when considering this motion.
	The motion is worthy, appropriate and of great importance. Members' contributions so far have shown that the subject greatly engages us. That is precisely why my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), supported by 10 other Liberal Democrat Members, brought her Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill to the House. I have to say that my hon. Friend's Bill was somewhat bolder than the Conservative Opposition motion today. It was not restricted solely to gardens, but looked into the protection of parkland and recreation spaces as well.
	Having heard what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, I hope that Conservative Front Benchers will give a clear commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull that when her Bill is debated on Friday 20 October they will ensure that the dinosaurs on their Back Benches do not hinder, obstruct or delay the measure coming into law. Her Bill exactly encapsulates the points that the Conservatives are now making. In introducing the Bill, she said that
	"by designating people's gardens as brownfield land, planning guidelines have had the unintended consequence of enabling developers to target windfall developments in preference to true brownfield sites."
	She said of developers:
	"If they can develop a soft target, instead of tackling polluted and more difficult inner-city true brownfield sites, they will do so."
	In her telling phrase,
	"It is like putting a goat in a garden and telling it to eat thistles and not the flowers".—[ Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1112.]
	That is the essence of the case being made in today's debate.
	We have to ask exactly what led the Conservatives to change the definition of today's debate from the broader one that they announced last Thursday. I did not hear clearly enough from them whether they have satisfied themselves in the meantime that the Government's housing policy is successful after all and does not require criticism. Do they now believe that the Government's planning policies are right, whereas last Thursday they thought that they merited debate because they were wrong? Is the development of back gardens all that they can find fault with in the Government's stewardship of Britain's environment, rural communities and leafy suburbs?

Andrew Stunell: I do not know whether the hon. Lady had the opportunity to hear what I said at the beginning of my speech, but I made the point that, although this is an important topic, the House also deserves the opportunity to reflect on the broader issues. I welcome the fact that Secretary of State brought some of those broader issues into play. If I consider the difference between the title announced by the Conservatives last Thursday and the motion tabled for debate today, I am tempted to echo the familiar words of the England manager, "First half good, second half not so good".

Brian Jenkins: On that very point, is the hon. Gentleman as amazed as I am at the full title of today's motion—"Removal of gardens from brownfield definition"? Will the redefinition safeguard gardens from further development? I do not think so and it would be the same if they redefined them as greenfield development. Surely what we should be interested in is the type and quality of the development and the degree of imposition it represents on the lives of people who live alongside that development. We should be debating not how to define the land, but how to empower councillors to safeguard people from such developments.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Whether we are talking about gardens, greenfield development or inner-urban development, what matters is what is done with the land.
	One of the reasons the Conservatives might have tried to narrow the focus of the debate is their sheer embarrassment. It started with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) back in February, when he spoke of taking
	"a fresh look at what we mean by a greenfield site."
	He made it clear that developing what he called "marginal scrubland" could be an option to revive decaying suburbs. I am not sure whether—to take my football analogy a bit further—he suffered a twisted knee or concussion, but he has not played that tune since.
	In April, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that the current planning system was "bananas" and that it was promoting a belief that we should
	"build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone."
	He derided it; he described it as "bananas"; and he slagged off Labour for not building enough homes. I presume that, some time between last Thursday and today, someone at Tory headquarters did some background research and advised the hon. Member for Meriden that to proceed on the broader front risked their looking very foolish indeed.

Caroline Spelman: The decision about what to debate sits fairly and squarely with me. The hon. Gentleman says, "First half good, second half bad". He clearly did not like the fact that I went much wider into the question of urban regeneration and affordability in the second half of my speech—I certainly expanded the debate much wider than just classification. However, I initiated the debate because of the cross-party support for a specific change in the law that he would like and that many of his hon. Friends signed up to, and the force of that cross-party consensus persuaded me that this was a good use of parliamentary time.

Greg Clark: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument with some difficulty. Does the think that it is a mistake for the Conservative party to give hon. Members the chance to debate the motion, on which there is a widespread consensus? It is important that we know whether he would prefer not to debate it.

Andrew Stunell: I am sure that Islington, like almost every other local authority in the country, has a rising council house waiting list. For example, Stockport has 13,000 council homes, and a waiting list of 6,000 households looking for social housing. The council would willingly provide more social housing units if it were given the finances and authority to do so.
	I want guidelines that are flexible and reflect the local community's legitimate concern to ensure that development is appropriate. The guidelines should also make it clear that any development should be sustainable, should protect biodiversity and should take into account legitimate concerns about local amenity. I have referred already to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, which I believe sets out very clearly the framework within which we should proceed.
	However, there is a serious case to answer on the broader issues. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister for Housing and Planning, will respond positively to the problems that exist, and explain how she intends to develop her policies to tackle them. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be sympathetic on the specifics: she certainly should be, as she has taken plenty of trouble in the past to protect the interests of her constituents faced with similar problems. I am sure that she will want to ensure that the same protection is available to people in Stockport, Solihull, Meriden or anywhere else.
	I hope that the right hon. Lady recognises that her Department's responsibility for planning guidance and law on the one hand, and for building regulations and codes on the other, gives her a unique opportunity to bring together coherent and long-overdue policies to promote environmental sustainability, ensure the preservation of biodiversity and increase the affordability of housing.
	As part of that comprehensive guidance, the Secretary of State should also make it clear that any proposed garden developments must comply fully with those criteria and that they will be refused if they do not. That is what my colleagues in Stockport and south Shropshire are doing, when they consider it appropriate.

Andrew Stunell: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Many letters written by Ministers to Members of Parliament are in the same vein as the one that he received. They say that such and such a decision is a matter for discretion. Whether we ask about schools, social services or planning, we receive the same letter and it is absolutely meaningless, because local authorities do not have the flexibility or authority, and certainly not the money, to deliver on the choices that Ministers say that they can make.
	The Secretary of State has a housing problem. An extra 500,000 families have been added to council house waiting lists since 1997 and 100,000 people are registered as homeless. As she said, the gap between homes built and households formed grows wider each year; it is substantial and will create ever-increasing problems of affordability and accessibility and for promoting sustainable communities, although I am pleased that she said clearly that she wanted to do something about it. She may hesitate to accept the motion, which we shall support. No doubt she will argue that to support it would in some mysterious way make the problem worse, but I urge her to recognise that bringing just a fraction of the 680,000 empty properties in England back into occupation would go a long way towards ameliorating the position, as would even half of the 1 million homes that her funded working group recommended be developed in commercial premises and over shops. If only a fraction of her working party's recommendations were implemented there would be a tremendous step forward in housing availability.

Nick Raynsford: I will start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) on one point: the importance of housing as a subject and the expectations that many of us had when we first understood that there was going to be a housing debate today. We hoped that we would hear from the Opposition on a number of rather important issues. They include how we can expand the supply of new homes, both for sale and for rent, in areas where they are needed; how we can ensure that we have sustainable developments that will prove attractive for people to live in for many years ahead and that we do not repeat the mistakes of some past patterns of development that have not proved satisfactory; how we can raise design standards and environmental performance in housing and so reduce carbon emissions; how we can help first-time buyers to get a foot on the ladder and extend opportunities for affordable home ownership; how we can ensure an adequate supply of rented housing for those who need or want to rent, rather than buy; how we break down some of the pernicious divisions between tenures that characterised much of 20th century housing policy; how we can ensure better provision for the homeless and for those requiring support and care, as well as a roof over their head; and how we can best continue to improve the conditions of poorer quality housing and areas in need of regeneration. We would have liked to hear from the Opposition on those, and many other vital issues for housing, but, sadly, we were disappointed.

Andrew MacKay: The hon. Lady has a distinguished record as an academic, so I am surprised by her intervention. We both live in the real world. If someone was offered half as much again for their property they would need a strong moral compass to refuse. We must ensure that local elected representatives make the final decision on what is built, as they will be held accountable for their decision when they seek re-election. If I may say so, the hon. Lady's intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was much better than her intervention on me. She said that development could not take place in the hamlets in her part of the north-east, which caused unnecessary development elsewhere. If power were restored to her local planning authority and people wanted development in the hamlets—she suggested that they did—that development would take place. If elected representatives get it wrong on planning and do not provide sufficient housing, or if they allow unreasonable and intrusive development that people do not want, they will be slung out at the next election. Democracy works well because it concentrates the minds of elected politicians, and that is what we want to do.
	May I return to my constituency to illustrate the strength of feeling on the issue? There have been two public meetings in Crowthorne, which is not a very big place. More than 500 people attended the first meeting—as politicians, we do not often attract such attendance—which I started to address inside the Morgan centre. However, the organisers were worried that many people were waiting in the crush outside, so I had to go out in the dark and address them in the recreation ground. It was like Gladstone and Disraeli again! The second public meeting was as full as the first, and it was attended by representatives of the other main political parties in my constituency. Everyone was united at that non-political event. It was characteristic of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to play party politics but, mercifully, the Labour representatives behaved much more responsibly at that meeting. That is not surprising, however, knowing them and knowing him.
	Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister for Housing and Planning responded to an initiative in Crowthorne. Local planning officials who came to the public meetings said that a village design statement would be helpful, so a group of hard-working independent people who had not taken part in objections to the development spent a great deal of time preparing such a statement for Crowthorne. It is extremely impressive, and the planners say that it will be made available to developers and other interested parties. It defines Crowthorne in a neutral tone—it is neither pro nor anti-development—and I would be grateful if the Minister told the House how much weight can be given to that statement, if she accepts my word that it is neutral and extremely professional? Will her inspectors, as well as the planning authority, take note of it? Bracknell Forest borough council and Wokingham unitary have both assured me that they will take it into account.
	I want to end as I began, by arguing that the definition of brownfield sites must change. Brownfield sites are derelict; they are industrial or commercial developments that are no longer used. They are just outside redeveloped inner-city areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made clear. They are not the gardens of existing houses. We want the definition to be tightened and changed. We also want an indication from the Minister and the Secretary of State that the democratically elected local politicians on planning authorities, and local residents, will be listened to far more than they are at present. If the Minister can give me that assurance when she winds up, I will leave the House tonight a very happy Member.

Margaret Moran: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), I had anticipated that this debate would be much more wide ranging than the motion on the Order Paper and would tackle serious housing issues. I welcome the Government's amendment, which has widened the terms of the debate.
	This debate appears to be a fig leaf—or any other kind of leaf—to cover the lack of Opposition policies for tackling issues such as homelessness and overcrowding. I hope that we will hear what we were all listening for: a full assurance from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that she agrees with the Government's targets for increases in the supply of affordable housing, which is so desperately needed in areas such as my Luton constituency. There is a crisis in areas such as mine, where we have no option to build outside my area.
	I do not recognise as accurate the hon. Lady's portrayal of areas around inner cities that are simply lying in wait to be redeveloped. In my constituency, those areas are being, and have been, developed. We have no land for new building inside our conurbation; no infill development opportunities are available.

Margaret Moran: I am sorry. I do not have time.
	That target is to be commended. The fact that Luton is part of the south midlands growth area strategy is our lifeline of hope for the thousands of people on our waiting lists, who are desperate for a transfer because of overcrowding and other needs.
	One of the arguments deployed by the Opposition, apart from the garden issue, relates to infrastructure, which has been mentioned many times. Of course, the infrastructure needs to be in place for the sustainable development of affordable housing. In my area I cannot see any dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in terms of providing infrastructure—rather, the reverse. They have put millions of pounds into transport infrastructure, such as the widening of the M1 and the introduction of the east Luton corridor and the Translink rail system, all of which—together with plans for the expansion of London Luton airport, which we look forward to—will provide necessary transport and employment opportunities and other infrastructure measures that underpin the growth strategy.
	I welcome the Government's targets for the increased supply of housing—200,000 homes by 2016—but the recent excellent report from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, "Affordability and the Supply of Housing" goes further. We have not yet got the Opposition to agree the first target and I am asking for another, but let us be aspirational. Shelter believes that a further 20,000 homes are needed on top of the target, and I agree. It would be as well for the Minister in her winding-up speech to suggest imaginative ways of adding to the target.
	We need to consider short and medium-term solutions to crises such as those in my area. Many families cannot wait four, five, six or seven years for the growth strategy to become a reality—for new homes to be available. I mentioned extensions. Converting existing homes should also be considered, although it is not straightforward. We need to deal with the issue of VAT on the refurbishment and repair of existing homes. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has raised consistently with the Chancellor, as have I, the point that there is no level playing field for VAT. I welcome the Chancellor's moves to ensure a reduction in VAT to bring empty properties back into use, but we need to act further and faster to rehabilitate older properties, such as those in the most deprived area of my constituency, which takes me right back to what I was doing when I first entered the social housing field.
	We also need urgently to tackle the issue of empty properties. As I have said, there are 680,000 empty properties nationally, which is 3 per cent. of housing stock. There are a number of empty properties in Luton, and we should take cognisance of the Government's existing target to reduce long-term empty properties by 25,000 by 2010, which would be a good start. The Empty Homes Agency has said that we need to be more ambitious given the scale of the crisis, and it has suggested the target of a 50 per cent. reduction by 2010 in the number of properties for more than six months. We need to be that ambitious, because the crisis is acute for the families I see day in, day out in my surgeries.
	The Government have gone beyond even my expectations. The previous Tory Government smashed investment in housing year on year, whereas this Government are committed to the necessary investment. However, I ask Ministers to move a little further, given the urgent crisis faced by families in our constituencies.

Greg Clark: If you were to go down to Tunbridge Wells today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would be sure of a big surprise. You would progress through some of the most beautiful leafy roads in Britain, which look at their best at this time of year. If you were to walk from the station, you would come before long to Forest road, where you would see family homes built in the 1920s and 1930s. Those homes have mature trees and gardens that teem with wildlife. The surprise is that you would be looking at a brownfield site.
	An even bigger surprise is that those houses are under threat because of that definition. This is what happens: developers offer one of the residents a big cheque; before very long, the hoardings go up; the house comes down; the garden is ploughed up; and the flats go in. In a short space of time, a road that has contributed to the character of an area for 50 or 60 years is replaced by a block of apartments and a parking lot. In those circumstances, the people who live next door think that the same thing will happen on the other side, so they panic and sell up. Within a short time, a domino effect ripples down such roads in my constituency and others like it, which completely changes the character of an area.
	The biggest surprise is that that process is happening not only in Tunbridge Wells and the leafy south-east, but across the country. When I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject four months ago, I did not know that it would attract e-mails, telephone calls and letters from all over the country—from Stockton-on-Tees to Bristol and from Cardiff to Rochdale. All the people who contacted me said that their local areas are being degraded, while the affordable housing that we need is not being provided. I accept the need for more housing and, in particular, for affordable housing. But I am concerned that such garden-grab developments are being used to avoid the affordable housing requirement, because they involve less than 15 units of housing. Such developments are displacing the development of genuine brownfield sites and robbing the poorer members of our society of their entitlement.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the threshold for including social housing should be lowered to, for example, six or eight units, which would mean a fair share of social housing would be developed on all sites?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Unfortunately, I am an Opposition Back Bencher, but I hope that the Minister may pick up his suggestion in due course.  [Interruption] The hon. Gentleman and I have something in common—we are fellow opposition MPs.
	The Secretary of State described our concerns as, in effect, a fiction, citing two reasons: first, that councils already have sufficient discretion to turn down such applications, and secondly, that the definitions have been consistent. I concede that the definition of brownfield sites has been around since 1985. However, it was never part of planning guidance, but merely a convenient way of recording statistics. Since then, two things have happened. First, the Government have introduced targets for building houses and for building on brownfield land. We all know that once one applies a target to a definition, that definition becomes important, which is why this definition is important now.
	Secondly, the Government have introduced higher density targets. In 1997, the average density of new build was 24 units per hectare; now, it is 42 units, nearly twice as high. Under planning policy statement 3, that could increase to as many as 70 in urban areas. As they say, "Do the math": if an existing home is to be replaced and those doubled, perhaps trebled, density targets are to be met, it cannot be done without the garden. There has been a material change in the environment.
	Confirming my perception, the Library, commenting on these changes, said:
	"Taken together, those factors have encouraged local planning authorities to approve planning applications for urban sites where houses have large gardens. There was enough in the guidance to justify developers appealing any refusal of this type of application with every chance of success. In other words...the overall policy environment has changed as regards developing on gardens."

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that provides a useful opportunity to clarify the purpose of my Bill and the motion. We do not want to preserve in aspic every garden in the country but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) said, to return to a situation whereby local authorities—democratically elected representatives—make case-by-case decisions.
	The Secretary of State suggested that the situation is exaggerated, or even a fiction, almost as if our constituents are suffering from the delusion of the emperor's new clothes and imagining something that does not exist. A couple of months ago, the previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), said:
	"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has rebutted strongly the allegations that garden grabbing is going on. We do not take the accusations seriously."—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 234WH.]
	Our constituents take them seriously, as they are aware that it is going on. Last year's figures show that 15 per cent. of residential development is now on garden-grabbed sites—that is, one in six new homes.

Jeremy Hunt: Does my hon. Friend agree that provided local authorities are given the responsibility of finding housing for young people to help them to get on to the housing ladder, there is no problem in giving them the final decision, rather than an interim decision, on whether housing development should go ahead and housing densities should reflect the concerns of local people?

Greg Clark: I entirely agree. If we treat local people as infants and do not allow them any say but only to kick out against decisions taken from afar, it is no wonder that we see such pent-up anger in our constituencies. I trust the people in my constituency to make the right decisions. They want to have houses and flats for their children and grandchildren, but they want to preserve the character of the area. They are able to strike that balance, and I trust them on that.
	In introducing my ten-minute Bill and tabling an early-day motion, I was not trying to make a partisan political point. I believe that a mistake was made in definition at a time when it did not matter and we have an opportunity to correct it. The Minister for Housing and Planning can do that easily. All it requires is a change in the language of planning guidance. She can do it in PPS3. If she does that, she can look back on her tenure in the Department in the knowledge that she contributed something of lasting value to all our constituents. Hon. Members of all parties support that—we are making a cross-party plea.
	If the Minister does not do what we propose, I fear that, in 30 years, we will look back on what has happened in the same way as we now look back on the destruction of some of our city centres, razed to make way for bland shopping centres. We will wonder why on earth we allowed it to happen. The Minister has a chance to prevent that, and I urge her to take it.

Andrew Slaughter: Like several of my hon. Friends, I am disappointed by the narrowing of today's debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was two years since the Opposition previously asked for a debate on housing. The debate before that took place four years earlier. In the past five debates on housing for which the Opposition called, I noted an uncanny consistency in that all the motions contained the phrase, "serious threat to the nation's green fields", or something similar. We have moved from that to a serious threat to the nation's back gardens. We are narrowing the debate all the time.
	I do not imply that the issue is irrelevant but it is not the subject that an Opposition party that wished to set out its stall on housing would choose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) listed the many topics that we could consider. Even in the context of the motion, overdevelopment is an interesting subject and we could have profitably debated the fact that many developers try to overdevelop on inner-city sites. However, the debate has been narrowed to such an extent that one has to ask why. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) suggested that the answer was shortage of policy. I would not go that far, but the Opposition display a reluctance to put any more than their toe in the water.
	The Opposition are obviously conducting another spurious green campaign. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State effectively demolished the argument in the motion by saying that brownfield development and the volume of green belt land have increased under Labour, that the percentage of residential land that is being developed has decreased and that local authorities have discretion in the planning process. None of the Opposition arguments makes sense and one must therefore ask why they have chosen the topic. I fear that it signals a return to dog whistle politics. It proclaims that, whatever the Conservative party says at the moment about being friendly and wanting to tackle the housing shortage, if people listen carefully, it is not genuinely in favour of development anywhere.

Andrew Slaughter: I would love to give way, but I am short of time.
	I have had the privilege of living in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for some 40 years and I remember when there was a Tory-Liberal coalition there from 1978-86. Not a single council property, save for sheltered housing, was built in that time. Under a Labour administration, 70 per cent. affordable housing was built in the borough. To revert to the point that appeared to trouble the Opposition spokesman, any development of five or more homes had to include an affordable element. That was such a contrast with neighbouring Kensington and Westminster. I am sad to say that we now have another Conservative administration in Hammersmith and Fulham. Already, in only two months, developers tell me that they are coming under pressure to reduce to a minimum the percentage of affordable housing in schemes.
	The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is wrong about the mythical "Harry Potter" realm between the inner city and the suburbs, full of oases of brownfield sites that can be developed. There are one or two, even in my constituency.
	In those places, the developers are being told, "It's more difficult because of the Greater London authority and the 50 per cent. rule. Let's keep it down as much as we possibly can."
	More widely across London, the figures for social rented housing completions since 1998 speak far more eloquently than any of the words of the Opposition can. In Tower Hamlets, the figure is 3,902; in Hackney, it is 2,563; and in Hammersmith and Fulham, it is 1,587. Let us compare those figures with that of Richmond, at 628, and Wandsworth, at 492. A borough that is twice the size of Hammersmith and Fulham managed to complete only a third of the number of social housing units in that time. The only other connection to be made is that it is the Conservative boroughs that are building the smaller numbers of housing units, and the Labour boroughs that are building the large numbers. I wish that I had time to go through all the figures, because the same applies to the current round of housing allocation. It is absolutely shameful that while Hammersmith and Fulham is planning to build almost 1,000 units in the current two-year period, Wandsworth—a borough of twice the size—is planning only 248.

Andrew Slaughter: I wish that I could, but I simply do not have the time.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was kind enough to praise a development in Hammersmith and Fulham in a speech that he made earlier this year. It will therefore be of concern to him that every affordable housing development in Hammersmith and Fulham between 1986 and 4 May this year was opposed by the Conservatives in that borough. That is the truth about Conservative housing policy. We have heard "Don't build it on greenfield sites", and we are now hearing "Don't build it on brownfield sites". The Conservatives' consistent policy is "Don't build it". That is the message that comes through loud and clear. They clearly think that they are popular, but they need to be clear that the dog whistle cannot go off pitch because certain groups of people might be listening to it.
	There are families with four children living in one-bedroom flats in my constituency—this is beginning to sound like the four Yorkshiremen sketch—but I cannot imagine that the Conservatives would be too concerned about them. However, they might be a bit more concerned about the young professionals and first-time buyers who are also desperate for accommodation, but who cannot get on the housing ladder—although the Conservatives did oppose the introduction of home sellers' packs. They might also be concerned about the young families who are trying to trade up, but who have little chance of doing so in London. We need a better intermediate housing market for those people. The Conservatives are obviously not even concerned about the empty-nesters who are selling their properties to developers so that they can get a pension out of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) pointed out.
	I would advise the Conservatives to listen more carefully, although I would not advise them to orchestrate another debate on this subject within the next five or six years. The more we hear about the detail of their housing and planning policies, the more hollow they ring. Perhaps that is why they pulled the original subject for their debate and replaced it with this fig leaf of a debate instead. The Conservatives' policies ring hollow because of their real opposition to the building of housing, particularly affordable housing, and the fact that they have nothing to put in its place.

Michael Gove: We have had a good debate this afternoon and passions have been engaged on both sides of the House. That is hardly surprising, because this subject goes to the heart of the central political question of our time—how do we maintain and enhance our citizens' quality of life?
	I should like to pay particular tribute not only to the Members who spoke in the limited time available, but to those who intervened, often to powerful effect. I should like to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), for Castle Point (Bob Spink), for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), all of whom paid eloquent testimony to the way in which the Government's policy denies their communities the types of housing and development that they need.
	The motion has attracted support from across the House, and I also want to pay particular tribute to the interventions by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods). All three of them emphasised one of the weaknesses at the heart of Government policy. Given the way in which urban green space—gardens—is classified as brownfield land, developers who should be encouraged to move towards genuine areas of desolation instead cherry-pick garden sites for their housing developments. As a result, the admirable aim behind the Government's policy and our policy, which is to encourage urban regeneration, is undermined by an unfortunate misapplication of an originally well-intentioned policy.
	As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), no great legislative change is required—an edict from the Minister for Housing and Planning could change a situation that, unfortunately, leads to the perverse outcomes to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and other hon. Members have referred.

Michael Gove: No, I will not give way at this stage, but I thank my hon. Friend.
	As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), there is a consensus in the House on the need for new homes. That consensus has been led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), both of whom have made speeches recently stressing the need to increase housing supply in this country. The Government, in talking about increasing supply, have always concentrated on quantity, but unfortunately they have lost the plot—indeed, they have lost the garden plot—on quality. The debate provides an opportunity for the Government to make a fresh start and to show that they believe that, when encouraging development, the right sort of development must take account of people's need to ensure that there is appropriate urban green space.
	Talking of changing policy, I was particularly interested in some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State in her speech. She talked about the need to take tough decisions on housing. I pay tribute to some of the tough decisions that she has taken in her role as the MP for her constituency. In March 2005, she supported residents who opposed plans to build 200 new homes. In 2004, she supported residents in a successful campaign to stop 30 new flats being built in an area of Bolton. The year before, she played a leading role in blocking proposals for a block in the same area. In 2002, she fought against plans to build new homes in West Horton. Two years earlier, she celebrated with residents after she had blocked a proposal for 600 new homes. In 1999, she played a pivotal role in blocking proposals to build 1,100 new homes in her constituency. Indeed, Margaret Rothwell, the chairman of Bolton's planning committee, said:
	"in my experience, whenever a group of residents in her constituency oppose a development, she always backs them."
	That is an interesting record, but I come not to condemn the Secretary of State, but to praise her for defending the interests of her constituents, because that is what the motion is about—restoring to local communities the chance to shape their own environments.
	The call put forward in the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells has attracted formidable cross-party support. I offer the Minister the chance to join that progressive consensus today. Forty of her colleagues and several senior Liberal Democrats have said that the motion is important, because they recognise that urban green space is good for the nation's health, good for the environment and good for biodiversity.
	The  British Medical Journal has emphasised how good green space is for our health. It pointed out that in environments with a high level of greenery, there is three times the level of physical activity and 40 per cent. less obesity—both form targets that the Government want to encourage, yet their policy works against doing so.
	On the environment, the World Health Organisation in its recent report "Green cities, blue cities"—I do not know why it chose that title, but I can only commend it to the House—said that where there is extensive urban greenery, not only are CO2 emissions absorbed, but oxygen is emitted. Tree leaves collect dust and the phyto-acids in trees act as bactericides. Our urban green space plays a key part in ensuring that our environment is cleaner.
	On biodiversity, the university of Sheffield, in a recent study, pointed out:
	"Gardens are brilliant for wildlife. Gardens are England's most important nature reserve."
	However, under this Government, that nature reserve is increasingly being concreted over.
	At the heart of the debate is the question of local accountability, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). At the moment, the combination of the Government's policies denies local autonomy over not just the designation of gardens as brownfield land, but density targets. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, the Library, which is independent, has recently drawn attention to the fact that that perverse trend has gathered pace under this Government. It pointed out that
	"the 2000 PPG3 contains pressure to increase density of development, which reads back into greater pressure to develop urban gardens... This has been combined with increased housing targets in the South of the country... those factors have encouraged local planning authorities to approve planning applications for urban areas where houses have large gardens."
	The Library concludes:
	"There was enough in the guidance to justify developers appealing any refusal of this type of application with every chance of success."
	In other words, local communities are robbed of control over their own environments because of the Government's policies.

Michael Gove: Not at this stage.
	The situation is likely to become still worse because of the changes in planning policy guidance note 3 in the new planning policy statement 3, which increases the density pressure. We recognise that, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) pointed out, some communities will want sensitive garden and infill development, and we believe that communities in which there is strong popular backing for such development should be allowed to go their own way. The problem with policy at present is that local autonomy is denied, and communities that wish to resist development are robbed of the power to do so.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) congratulated us on raising an important issue and, a second later, said that he was disappointed that we had selected this subject for debate. I am used to hearing Liberal Democrats saying different things to different audiences, but that was an example of one Liberal Democrat saying different things to the same audience. All I would ask the hon. Gentleman is, why have the Liberal Democrats not used any of their Opposition day debates to discuss housing and planning issues in the past? Let me give the House an assurance: I will talk about housing and planning whenever the Government give me an opportunity, and I shall be delighted to use any opportunity that may be extended by the Minister or the Secretary of State to hold the Government to account for their failure to deliver on their housing targets.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) why she had not talked about rural housing affordability, supply generally or location. In fact, my hon. Friend explicitly mentioned all three. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of football analogies; let me give him such an analogy. He took his eye comprehensively off the ball, and scored a series of own goals. [Hon. Members: "Very funny!"] I am grateful for those generous words.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), whose commitment to housing and planning is well known, made a fascinating speech. He understandably referred to the regeneration in his constituency, which in many cases I would applaud, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden pointed out, much of the investment there was due to the millennium dome. Given public investment on that scale, I am not surprised that there has been urban regeneration—but I doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the level of public expenditure in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as a result of the dome to apply in the constituencies of the rest of us.
	The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that we were opposed to patios and extensions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, it is unfortunately the changes to council tax that the Government are contemplating that will discourage people from enhancing their homes as we would like them to do. Our policy would enable local authorities to allow precisely such enhancement.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), with his customary authority and sensitivity to the needs of his constituents, said that local residents' opposition to housing development in their area was continually ignored by the planning inspectorate, which is an unfortunate example of increased centralisation under this Government. He emphasised that local elected representatives needed to be able to decide. That is at the heart of our argument.
	The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) raised—with admirable eloquence and clarity—the problem of overcrowding. In particular, she drew attention to its seriousness among black and minority ethnic people. I agree with her that we need to address the problem. Indeed, I have had the opportunity to make the point in Westminster Hall. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in pressing the Minister to change the statutory definition of overcrowding, so that we have a more appropriate benchmark for government policy in the future. I also hope that she will join me in recognising that it was under the last Conservative Government that we succeeded in increasing the amount of social housing that was supplied, and that under the present Government the amount of social housing released and supplied has diminished.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—who deserves enormous credit for having introduced a ten-minute Bill, which a Government Whip sadly tried to strangle the other day—spoke with passion, fluency and great intellectual authority about the perversity of encouraging development on urban green space when the original brownfield designation was intended to ensure that industrial land was redeveloped. He pointed out, crucially, that for those of us who believe in creating more social and affordable housing, infill and garden development of the kind that we are seeing does not trigger the requirement to provide such housing that is laid down in the Government's regulations. That point was backed up by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).
	The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) spent most of his speech saying that he wished we had had another debate. Given the rest of his comments, I understand and sympathise with his desire to speak on a different motion. He did not directly address any of the concerns raised by his hon. Friends who signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells.
	In voting for the motion, hon. Members will be standing up for the sort of spacious domestic environment that gives families the chance to enjoy a decent quality of life. We will be standing up for biodiversity and urban green space against policies that perversely encourage insensitive development. Most importantly of all, we will be standing up for local people, local autonomy and local government, against centralised edicts that rob people of control over their communities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a point. [Interruption.] However, the Secretary of State has just arrived. I would not use the term "insolence", but those who lead off a debate should return for the wind-up speeches. It is a strong tradition of this House, and it should be observed.

Yvette Cooper: We have had a wide-ranging debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) raised issues to do with environmental standards for housing, about which I agree. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out some of the rather absurd—if unintended—consequences for extensions that the Opposition motion would have. Under the terms of the motion, extensions would be regarded as brownfield development.
	The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) asked about village design statements. I shall be happy to respond to him in more detail, but I assure him that we support those statements and want to give them a stronger role in the new planning guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) talked about the serious need for new homes in her constituency.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) raised a variety of points, and I shall respond to many of them in due course. However, he raised an important issue when he said that small housing developments do not include affordable housing. I agree that that is a significant matter, and it is one of the factors supporting the introduction of the planning gain supplement that may be more appropriate for smaller sites.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) raised some important points. I was very concerned by what he said about the attitude towards affordable housing of the new Conservative-controlled council in his area. That is a serious problem for people in his constituency.
	Opposition Front Benchers touched on a range of issues to do with density and planning guidance. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that the Government make no apology for saying that we think that density should be greater. For many years, low-density executive developments have taken up large areas of greenfield land, and it is simply not true that one cannot build at relatively higher densities and still include gardens or wonderful designs.
	I turn now to the main issues in the debate. The Opposition have called for an end to building on back gardens, but we need be clear about the facts. In 2005, 14 per cent. of new homes were built on residential land.  [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members have made their points, and I want to respond. That figure includes homes built on the footprint of previous buildings, and is not confined to homes built on drives or back gardens. In 1990, in contrast, 20 per cent. of new homes were built on previously developed residential land. Therefore, the proportion of new homes being built on previously developed residential land is lower today than it was in 1990.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. He should remember, when he intervenes on a point of order, that the wind-up speaker has only 10 minutes and that he is interfering with that time.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the House, but I now have very little time to respond to the many points made in the debate.
	It is certainly true that this Government have increased the emphasis on the use of brownfield land. We make no apology for that, as the result has been a renaissance in our cities and towns, the regeneration of many abandoned industrial sites and a substantial reduction in the amount of greenfield land needed for development. According to the urban taskforce, 90 people were living in the heart of Manchester in 1990; today, 25,000 people live there and the city is thriving as a result. The proportion of new homes on former industrial and commercial sites has more than doubled since 1997 as a result of the measures we have taken.
	Members have raised specific issues about brownfield categorisation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins): the issue should not be about blocking whole categories of development as either greenfield or brownfield, but about quality and appropriateness. It should also be about meeting needs. Opposition Members must recognise that we need to make sure that we meet the needs of the next generation for homes. To listen to some of them talk about flats and the problems of developing flats, we would think that flats was a dirty word. They need to recognise that it is not planning definitions and Government requirements that put pressure on their constituencies, but need and demand for housing. We all have an obligation to respond to that.
	I agree that we need to strengthen the focus on quality and design both of buildings and their neighbouring environment. That is why we set out in December new consultation on planning guidance, which states clearly:
	"New development should be of high quality inclusive design...The key consideration should be whether a development positively improves the character and environmental quality of an area and the way it functions."
	It also states:
	"Although residential gardens are defined as brown field land this does not necessarily mean they are suitable for development."
	Local authorities will have a clear obligation to look at quality, but also to provide land for the homes we need.
	Given the passion of Opposition Members, I looked up their contributions to the planning policy consultation. Unfortunately, they said nothing because they did not respond—so much for their apparent commitment to improving the location and planning of housing. However, I suspect that that is not what the debate is really about. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove—

Yvette Cooper: To be fair to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I am happy to clarify the point. We received no responses from Opposition Front Benchers on that issue—nor from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, who has made such a point of debating it in this place.
	That is not what the debate is really about; it is about the fact that the Conservatives still oppose new housing. They still do not accept the fact that we need 200,000 new homes every year if we are to meet the needs of future generations. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has not only said that she will refuse to agree to the 200,000 additional homes we need; she has also told the  House magazine that she thinks 140,000 new homes is too high. We are already building more than 140,000—that number is not too high.

human tissue

EDUCATION AND TRAINING KEY COMPETENCES

Angela Eagle: After recent local elections, one of my constituents, Mr. Alex McFadden, was subject to a sudden violent attack at his home in front of his two young daughters. A stranger called at the house, and tried to barge his way in when the front door was opened. My constituent fought to keep him out while he was punched and hit on the face. His oldest daughter had the great presence of mind to call the police as the struggle continued at the front door. Thankfully, the police arrived at the scene within two minutes, but the man fled, leaving my constituent covered in blood. He had not been punched at all, but knifed about the head, arms and face. He had to attend the accident and emergency department at Arrowe Park hospital to receive treatment for his wounds. Goodness knows what would have happened if his assailant had got into the house.
	Mr. McFadden is a well-known trade union activist who has just co-ordinated the campaign against the British National party in the north-west. His activism in the anti-fascist movement ensured that his name, home and workplace addresses and photograph feature on a nasty, extreme right website called Redwatch.

Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for his intervention. The police ought to be looking into that.
	The people targeted are routinely referred to on the website as "scum" and "retards", and other epithets that I shall not sully the House by repeating. There appears to be a pattern of violence aimed at the individuals targeted by this website that cannot be simply a coincidence. The site appears to be registered to the Nazi group, Combat 18, and features advertisements for Aryan Nations and other extreme Nazi organisations. Much of the information on it appears to be sent in by BNP activists.
	The anti-fascist organisation, Searchlight, investigated the site in 2003 and found a sinister discussion group attached to it called the "mole intelligence bureau", which includes the following call to arms:
	"Redwatch has accumulated many names and addresses along with pictures of the targets, many of whom have had nothing done to them. Now is the time to start a proper campaign of violence and intimidation".
	That is a classic fascist intimidation tactic.
	Rigorous action should be taken in respect of such incitement. The police have the power to monitor extremist chatrooms for the purposes of ensuring that criminality is not being organised. I certainly hope that that "mole intelligence bureau" and any of its successor chatrooms feature on the radar of the police in the monitoring role that they must perform to defend law-abiding citizens exercising their democratic rights.
	Information from Searchlight details campaigns of intimidation, such as the firebombing of anti-fascist activists' cars and frequent death threats. A TUC dossier contains other examples of victims who have suffered from having their details posted on this hate site. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) has suffered death threats and had his constituency office vandalised as a result of his opposition to the BNP and other far-right organisations, which is well known. Other MPs and elected councillors from all political parties have had similar experiences, as have journalists, teachers and trade unionists.
	In 2004, following violent attacks on some of their members, who also featured on that website, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Unison and the National Union of Teachers took a resolution to the TUC asking that the Government close down such sites. Since then, there has been a series of meetings at the Home Office and some parliamentary activity asking that action be taken to close the loophole that allows such internet-based incitement to continue seemingly unchecked.
	Although the Government have appeared sympathetic, it does not seem that much of practical use has been achieved in the intervening two years. Sympathy and words of concern are of course welcome, but I believe that preventive action is now in the public interest and is long overdue. What is certain is that both the incitement to violence and the attacks are continuing, despite the fact that the existence of this website was exposed and caused widespread concern several years ago.
	As a part of its response to the 2004 resolution, the TUC had a meeting with the then Home Secretary in March 2005, and he promised to consider what might be done to provide more protection from violent extremist websites. Although I understand that the general election then intervened, the TUC has still received no response. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister took this opportunity to update the House on the issue of hate websites, which appear to be operating with impunity.

Martin Salter: In studying Redwatch, my hon. Friend will have noticed that there is a link to a site operated by the same people called Noncewatch—"monitoring the perverted scum who prey on our kids!" It goes on to say:
	"Nonces deserve nothing more than a decent British noose around their necks and a long drop. It's time to fight back and scare...these evil bastards that are a serious threat to our communities."
	Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we go down the road of adopting the ill-thought out Sarah's law by putting the names and addresses into the public domain of everybody on the sex offenders register, the people behind Redwatch will use that as an opportunity to trigger violent vigilante action? Does she further agree that the Home Office needs very carefully to bear that in mind?

Angela Eagle: I certainly agree with the important point that my hon. Friend makes. In dealing with such important and emotive issues, which often elicit understandable anger and disgust, we must be careful to protect innocent victims as well as children.
	When people are attacked for exercising their democratic right, it is important that the police realise that we are dealing with a threat to our democracy in which violent political intimidation plays a part, and that that is more serious than has been recognised. Will my hon. Friend the Minister agree to meet a delegation from the TUC and others to discuss how the threat can be dealt with adequately? Will he consider taking action to close down hate sites, such as the one I have described?
	In early 2004 Baroness Scotland replied to a question in the Lords from Lord Greaves. He was immediately featured on Redwatch for his trouble in raising the matter. Among other things, the noble Baroness emphasised the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and mentioned the Internet Watch Foundation. Government responses to previous parliamentary questions about Redwatch have also referred to protection from racial and religious harassment. That is right, but the protection offered in the harassment statute does not appear to fit well with incitement to what I call political hatred which leads to violent criminal acts. That is what this hate website appears to be co-ordinating.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech. The importance of the debate is apparent, because many of my hon. Friends have chosen to attend. Informed and constructive discussion is key to tackling the menace of extremism, and today's debate presents an excellent opportunity to examine the issues around extremist websites that incite hatred. I will try to answer my hon. Friend's points as I make my speech.
	The Government deplore extremism of that kind, and strongly condemn websites such as Redwatch. I am sure that we all agree that although freedom of expression and open debate are cornerstones of British democracy, there is no place within the wide spectrum of British politics for organisations that encourage violence or intimidation against those whose views they disagree with. I was particularly sorry to hear about the cowardly attack last month on my hon. Friend's constituent, Alec McFadden. My sympathies are with him and his family, and I wish him a speedy recovery from his injuries.
	It may be helpful if I set this issue in the wider context of the Government's work on hate crime. Hatred, violence and incitement to violence are deplorable in any circumstances, but when that hatred is founded on some belief, difference or characteristic of the victim, as is the case with the Redwatch website and as it is with racists and homophobes, it is particularly deplorable.
	A Home Office working group is currently considering how to deliver a number of objectives in connection with the issue. The first objective is increasing the public's confidence in the criminal justice system and improving the way in which the criminal justice system responds to hate crime. The second objective is increasing the reporting of hate crime. The third objective is improving the proportion of hate crimes that are brought to justice. The fourth objective is improving the local response to hate crime, particularly in areas with high rates of hate crime. The fifth objective is increasing our knowledge base on hate crime.
	This work is currently focusing on crime motivated by race, faith and homophobic hatred, but the parallels with the topic that we are debating today are clear. A successful outcome, as measured against those objectives, will be a blow to the far right. Indeed, it could in some ways be regarded as indicative of positive changes in society that Redwatch feels so threatened by the anti-racism activists whom it targets that it feels the need to take such drastic action against them.
	Redwatch is a far right website with roots in the Combat 18 organisation. It publishes personal details such as names, addresses and pictures of people whom it believes to be anti-racist activists or demonstrators.